Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 131 (Wednesday, October 3, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 131 (Wednesday, October 3, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6167-H6237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 248 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 248

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two
hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendments recommended by the Committees on Agriculture and
International Relations now printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text printed in part
A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, modified by the amendment printed in part B of
the report. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed before October 3,
2001, in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be
printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 248 is a modified
open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2646, the Farm
Security Act of 2001. The rule provides two hours of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture. The rule waives all points of
order against consideration of the bill.
The rule further provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended
by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
International Relations now printed in the bill, it shall be in order
to consider, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
5-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
the printed text in part A of the Committee on Rules report
accompanying the resolution, modified by the amendment printed in part
B of the report. The rule waives all points of order against the
amendment in the nature of a substitute and provides that it be shall
be considered as read.
The rule further makes in order only those amendments that have been
preprinted in the Congressional Record before October 3, 2001, and
provides that each such amendment may be offered only by the amendment
who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as
read. Finally, the rules provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 provides $73.5 billion over the next 10 years
to overhaul the 1996 farm bill. It reauthorizes a Food for Progress
Program, which finances food grants to developing countries that are
committed to democracy and free market system at $100 million per year
through 2001. I am especially pleased that this bill reauthorizes the
Market Access program, which helps producers, including many tree fruit
growers in Central Washington, in my district, promote exports abroad
and increases that funding by $110 million per year to $200 million
annually.
The MAP funds have proven to be an effective means of assisting
producers not normally provided for the federal farm legislation.
Cherries, apples, grapes, dry peas, hops and lentils are just a few of
the commodities in my district that benefit from this important
program.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 is a balanced bill providing support for
American agricultural through commodity assistance, conservation
programs, nutrition programs, enhanced international trade, rural
development, forestry initiatives, and a host of other important
provisions.
The bill was reported by the Committee on Agriculture by a voice vote
and is broadly supported by members of that Committee and our
colleagues in the whole House. In order to permit Members seeking to
improve the bill to the fullest extent possible, an opportunity was
given to offer amendments. The Committee on Rules is pleased to report
the modified open rule requested by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2646.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time.
This is a modified open rule. It will allow for the consideration of
a bill which funds farm price supports, conservation programs, domestic
nutrition programs, and international food assistance over the next 10
years.
As my colleague from Washington has described, this rule provides 2
hours of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the
normal amending process in the House. The rule requires that all
amendments must be preprinted in the Congressional Record.
Mr. Speaker, there is no human need more basic than food. Ensuring
that our citizens are fed is one of the most important duties of
government. This bill establishes the basic framework of government
support for farmers to maintain a stable, affordable source of good
food for Americans. The bill also

[[Page H6168]]

authorizes programs providing food for needy people in the United
States and around the world.
I want to thank the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Combest) and his staff for their diligent work in
putting together this farm bill, as well as ranking minority member,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Members of the committee put a
lot of energy and effort into this bill, including attending field
hearings around the country. The result is a fair process and a
bipartisan bill with support on both sides of the aisle.
The bill includes many compromises. The committee has done a good job
in striking a balance between the different interests represented in
this country and in this House.
I am glad that the bill includes necessary improvements to the Food
Stamp Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which is our
Nation's first line of defense against hunger. These programs are
especially important in times of increasing unemployment.
Additionally, the legislation includes the Bill Emerson-Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellows Program, and this is a fitting tribute for our two late
colleagues, and it honors their legacy by training leaders in the fight
against hunger.
Thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the
Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde), the bill authorizes the George McGovern-Robert Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, sometimes
called the Global Schools Lunch program, and this will be a vital
weapon in our arsenal in the worldwide fight against ignorance and
disease.
However, I am concerned about the potential gap in funding between
the current Global School Lunch program and the authorized program
created under this bill. Later, I am hoping to engage Chairman Combest
in a colloquy on this matter.
I also plan to offer an uncontroversial amendment which will give
more flexibility in the management of the Food for Peace program. This
was requested by the U.S. AID and the World Food Programme.
Mr. Speaker, our world has changed since September 11, and it is
necessary to look at major legislation such as this in light of our new
security concerns, and among those concerns are the hunger and the
poverty and the misery around the world that, if ignored, can become
breeding grounds for violence and hatred.
I have seen the effect of our food aid in dozens of countries, but
nowhere more clearly than in North Korea. Five years ago, people would
run when they saw Americans. That was before bags of American grain
began reaching schools and orphanages there, helping to alleviate the
crushing famine.
Today, there are 15 million of those U.S. AID ``handshake'' bags
being used over and over, delivering the message that the American
people are not the enemies of the Korean people, and that message is
getting through, and the evidence is the way ordinary North Koreans now
break into smiles at the sight of Americans.
As my colleagues know, I think we should send a lot more food aid to
the more than 800 million hungry people in our world, and we should do
it because it saves their lives and gives them hope. We should do it
because it helps our farmers and instills goodwill towards Americans,
and we should do it because we should not let terrible conditions
fester and become even bigger problems for our Nation.
The food assistance programs authorized by this bill give the
President additional tools in showing our allies, new and old, that we
are in a war with terrorists and not the downtrodden people of any
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time, and I just want to rise in support of this rule.
I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and others on the Committee on Rules for
a very open process there in granting this rule.
As mentioned, the rule does provide the opportunity for Members to
offer a wide variety of amendments. Some of those, I am sure, will
create some extended discussion. That is, however, part of the process.
It is a good rule, and I particularly would again like to thank the
Committee on Rules for granting the rule that was requested by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and myself.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I mentioned, I am pleased that the Committee on Agriculture and
the Committee on International Relations have included provisions in
the bill that would establish what is commonly known as the Global
School Lunch program. This exports some of the best we have to offer,
American food and compassion to developing countries around the world.
The global food for education initiative currently operated by the
Agriculture Department has worthy goals of feeding hungry children,
promoting education, especially among girls, and assisting American
farmers.
It was inspired by former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole. It
was announced at the G-8 summit last July, and it has broad bipartisan
support. Authorization of the program is now part of the farm bill due
to the exemplary work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest),
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking minority
members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos).
I am concerned, however, that there is a possible gap between the end
of the existing funding and the beginning of the appropriated funding
for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest)
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy about this concern. I have
also a note that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) wanted to be
here to discuss this matter but is chairing an important hearing on
terrorism.
So, is it the hope and understanding of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) that the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to operate
the Global Food for Education initiative until such time as the
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program is
established?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and want
to assure him that I support the provisions of the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education Program contained in the bill in hopes
that they and the rest of the bill will be enacted quickly.

{time} 1030

I want to state that I agree that the current program should be
continued so that there will not be a gap in the important work that is
being done. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have
requested that the General Accounting Office review the current Global
Food for Education Initiative, and we expect that review to be
completed in a few months. I will be happy to work with the gentleman
to examine that GAO recommendation.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
gentleman's assurances and hope we can work together to ensure that the
recommendations to improve the program will be implemented.
Mr. COMBEST. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would
certainly agree and again look forward to receiving the report. While I
am concerned that this and any other new program achieve the goal set
out for it, I share the concern of my colleague from Ohio that the
needs of hungry children should not go unmet, especially when the
United States is able to produce food in such abundance. I appreciate
his intent and look forward to working with him on this program in the
future.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Reclaiming my time once again, I want to thank the

[[Page H6169]]

chairman, and I also want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Emerson), who have worked tirelessly on this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Speaker of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), said that he believed it
important that on most of the issues we face we proceed under what he
calls regular order, and that is exactly what we are doing here. We
have basically an open amendment process. We call this a modified open
rule because it offers just the slightest restriction, but under the
structure that we have, every germane amendment will be able to be made
in order.
I know there are some who have demonstrated some concern about that
as we proceed with consideration of this farm bill. I believe that it
is the most appropriate way for us to proceed. So I hope that my
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, will join in strong support of this rule and
allow us to move ahead with consideration of a wide range of issues.
I know there are some issues that they would like to have brought up
under this structure that we have, but that would have required a
waiver. We chose not to provide that waiver, and there are other
mechanisms that exist in the institution where they will be able to
address those concerns.
So I would simply like to say that I urge my colleagues to support
this rule, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for their management of this effort.
We are going to proceed in a bipartisan way with what will be a free
and rigorous and interesting open debate on consideration of the farm
bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who is the ranking member on the Committee
on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. As we have
heard, it is essentially a fair rule; and I am grateful to my chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), for requesting such a fair
rule. I hope the entire House appreciates the fairness of the action of
the request of the House Committee on Agriculture.
This rule restores a tradition of full and fair debate that always
used to take place when farm bills came to the floor. While I feel the
committee bill is a reasonable consensus product, I know that many of
my colleagues believe it can be improved, and I very much look forward
to the discussion before us. As a participant in its development, I
believe that our debate will provide an excellent opportunity for all
of our colleagues and for the American people to see the wisdom of the
committee's work.
The open rule has become too rare in the debates we have had in the
House in recent years. In the Committee on Agriculture we never
considered having this bill considered on the floor in a restrictive
way. Anticipating an open rule, we knew that every decision we made,
every effort designed to set budgetary priorities would be subject to
the full scrutiny of every Member of the House.
I fully believe that anticipation of an open floor debate helped us
to build a better bill in committee. As a result, it has the support of
a broad diversity of interests. And while the support of the
agricultural community for our bill is gratifying, the validation of
others is particularly rewarding.
Mr. Speaker, I very much look forward to our debate in the days ahead
and I hope my colleagues will observe the benefits from this open and
fair process.
Mr. Speaker, the bill reforms our foreign programs in a way that will
prevent any future need for the billions of dollars of emergency
spending that have been required in recent years. It greatly expands
USDA's conservation programs. And I reemphasize that: an 80 percent
increase in the conservation title in this bill. It reauthorizes and
improves the food stamp program, and I am gratified for the support of
the hunger community on this bill and in recognizing the significance
of those things that we did in the nutrition component. It renews our
emphasis on the importance of rural economic development, particularly
water and agricultural research.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget
Office, and its 10-year score is within the limit of the funds that
were included within the budget resolution. Congress anticipated the
need for farm policy reform; and its passage, I believe, is the
fiscally responsible thing to do.
Though I strongly support this rule, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make
moment of the state of affairs that has become apparent since budgetary
reestimates were released in August. Although it is the case that the
budget anticipated farm bill spending, the availability of the funds
was made on a contingent basis. For fiscal years 2003 through 2011,
funds are made available to provide for a bill from the Committee on
Agriculture if the chairman of the Committee on the Budget makes an
allocation subject to the condition.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are well aware, and as my friend from
South Carolina has clearly shown to all Members, only in the most
technical sense can it be regarded that the conditions of the money in
this bill has been met. Our budget is busted. The budget resolution is
irrelevant. There is no on budget surplus. We are into Social Security
and Medicare spending and we are on our way to a unified budget
deficit, all as a result of the economy and of September 11.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and the farm bill, we must be
thinking clearly about our budget responsibilities. Passage of this
bill was anticipated in the budget and is crucial to forestall the need
for Congress to continually provide emergency spending. However, we
cannot avoid the fact that its passage and all other spending bills we
have recently considered and that will remain to be considered take us
deeper and deeper into Social Security revenue.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues in a
bipartisan way and to the administration to now develop a new budget.
We need to unite on our budget now so that we do not make those
mistakes today, with all good intentions, that will not be in the best
interest of our country 10 years from today.
I believe the bill that we bring before the House today from the
agriculture perspective meets all of that criteria; and therefore, I
urge the support of the rule and of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the
chairman for producing this bill. I think the bill contains many good
things. It reauthorizes the food stamp program, does a very good job on
that; it provides a great deal of authorization for appropriate
research in agriculture; and does many good things for the agricultural
community across the country.
However, there is one glaring problem with the underlying bill and
the rule that governs it. The underlying bill makes inadequate
provision for the dairy industry. Specifically, the inadequate
provision is the failure of the bill to recognize the need for dairy
compacts, particularly in the East and Southeastern parts of the United
States where the dairy industry is in great peril. This rule does not
provide the opportunity for a debate on that issue, and that is a major
defect in the rule.
Over and over again the leadership of this House has promised that
there would be an opportunity to debate the issue of dairy compacts and
that there would be an opportunity to have a vote one way or the other
and allow the House to express its will on the issue of dairy compacts.
This bill fails to do that and the rule fails to make in order such an
amendment. This is a glaring deficiency.
Why are we concerned about that? We are concerned about it because
the dairy industry is an important part of the agricultural industry in
this country. Without the opportunity for dairy

[[Page H6170]]

compacts, a major portion of that dairy industry, that which exists
principally in the eastern part of the country, both north and south,
is in grave danger of perishing. If we lose the dairy industry, we lose
an important part of our communities all across New England and the
middle Atlantic States.
So the rule should be corrected. A debate on the dairy compacts ought
to be authorized. We ought to have an opportunity to discuss this very
critical issue. Without that, the rule is grossly deficient.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, while I do not have much problem
with the rule, and I actually compliment the committee, I am concerned
that this bill continues to provide protection for some of our
antiquated, outmoded, and unneeded subsidies, especially in the sugar
program, where 1 percent of 17 farms will receive 58 percent of the
subsidy. That is one reason why I am asking people and urging support
for the Miller-Miller amendment when it comes to the floor.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 248 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. 2646.

{time} 1041

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. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2011, with Mr. LaHood 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 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my colleague,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for his great efforts in
arriving at a very bipartisan, very well-thought-out bill.
I also want to thank the 51 members of the House Committee on
Agriculture for the dedication and the time that they have put in to
see us arrive today at the product that we bring before the House. This
has been long in coming. And I would be remiss if I did not thank the
staff, minority and majority staff, for the tireless, long, long
nights, weeks, and months, that they have put into this process. We
could not have done it without them.
Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise today to bring
before the House H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. This bill
represents comprehensive agricultural legislation, making important
changes to all segments of our food and agricultural industries; and I
look forward to today's debate. Most importantly, this bill provides a
proactive market-oriented solution to the critical economic crisis that
has been eroding the financial footing of our Nation's farmers and
rural communities for the past 4 years. Just as important, this bill
will prevent the need for further ad hoc assistance for farmers in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, our committee has taken a very deliberate approach to
crafting this farm bill. Over the past 2 years, the House Committee on
Agriculture held some 47 hearings. We have traveled to all regions of
the country to listen to the needs and the concerns of hardworking
people from the farming and agri-business community. We have asked all
farm and interest groups to provide very specific ideas on how they
would improve current agricultural policy, which we received from them.
And, most importantly, we have worked in a very open and bipartisan way
to craft this bill, which enjoys an unprecedented level of support
among the agricultural sector.

{time} 1045

Mr. Chairman, the key factor of this bill's success in committee, and
its outcome today, is balance. In addition to addressing just about
every issue under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture,
H.R. 2646 represents a bipartisan balance between several important
issues, including: a safety net for America's farmers; unmet soil and
water conservation needs; foreign trade and promotion program
requirements; agricultural credit programs for America's farmers,
ranchers and rural areas; important agricultural research initiatives;
rural development programs that affect thousands of rural communities
across the country; and the list goes on and on.
I mention this in order to make the point that there is not a single
program or issue addressed by this farm bill that could not be further
improved with additional resources.
However, as I stated, the bill represents balance and it represents a
bipartisan balance that the Committee on Agriculture crafted based on
the input that we received from America's farmers and ranchers, soil
and water conservationists, agribusiness, private food aid
organizations, and many others.
The economic crisis that farmers have been facing since 1998 is not
of their own making. Rather, it is a result of large macroeconomic
factors like increased supply resulting from favorable world-wide
weather trends, tightening demand resulting from slow economic growth
rates, and a strong U.S. dollar pushing our products out of competition
and driving prices down on the world market. What is more, in the last
2 years farmers have been further squeezed by high energy prices which
have dramatically increased their input costs.
All of these are just reasons why Congress has acted to provide
relief in the last 4 years; but more importantly, these are reasons why
we need to act today and establish a more stable farmer policy for the
future.
H.R. 2646 establishes the critical safety net that our farmers and
the entire agricultural sector need to help this important sector of
our economy grow and prosper and create wealth for the future.
H.R. 2646 also represents a fiscally responsible approach to
providing the assistance farmers need. The $73.5 billion in additional
spending in H.R. 2646 was fully contemplated by the budget resolution.
The average $12 billion per year that would be spent on commodity
supports in this bill pales in comparison to the average $23.3 billion
that has been spent over the last 4 years.
H.R. 2646 will provide our Nation's farmers with the footing they
need to compete in the world marketplace. It is fully consistent with
our obligations under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture as
enforced by the WTO. In fact, there is a specific provision in this
bill which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make adjustments
in expenditure levels in order to ensure compliance with our trade
treaty obligations. Therefore, it is not only consistent, but
complementary, to a proactive trade policy that will seek to level the
international playing field and open new markets to our products for
the future.
H.R. 2646 also has an unprecedented level of support among the
agricultural community. The bill is supported by virtually all farm
groups, agribusiness and industry groups, many conservation groups,
rural advocates, towns and communities.
H.R. 2646 is a bipartisan and balanced way to address the needs of
America's agriculture sector. I look forward to completing action on
this very important legislation.
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 strong support of this bill, and I want to
begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) for

[[Page H6171]]

his leadership in bringing us to this point today, and to our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have participated in the many
hours, weeks, months, yes, years in the development of this
recommendation that we bring to the full House today.
The policies contained in the bill represent a truly balanced
consensus approach that reflects well on the process by which it was
designed. While there remain amendments to be considered, the product
before us represents a true bipartisan consensus, and I believe it has
broad support.
Mr. Chairman, the process for developing this bill and the one in
which the 1996 farm bill was enacted are as different as night and day.
The 1996 farm bill was a philosophical document written by the House
leadership. There were no public hearings, no process for the Committee
on Agriculture to build a consensus, and little optimism for its
success. Many of us who voted for it did so because we had no other
choice.
Mr. Chairman, I will not be the first to say that the 1996 farm bill
is an utter failure. It has failed our farmers. This failure was so
obvious to everyone involved that Congress and the White House have
repeatedly in this and each of the previous 3 years poured out billions
of unbudgeted additional dollars in the form of direct payments to
farmers.
Mr. Chairman, much has been said about how difficult times have been
for producers in those years. This point cannot be overstated, but it
was the taxpayers of America who were most widely disserved as the
emergency payments were spent without any repair being made to the
underlying program. These payments were clear evidence that the 1996
farm bill was not working. Today's farm bill gives the House an
opportunity to meet its responsibility to farmers, ranchers, and to the
American taxpayers.
Congress included sufficient funds in this year's budget to ensure
the Committee on Agriculture had the tools to develop a farm policy
that helps farmers when crop revenues are low, while providing the
predictability for government expenditures that taxpayers deserve, and
the predictability that our bankers are demanding.
With all of its strength, Mr. Chairman, this bill is being considered
under fiscal conditions that all of us had hoped to avoid. If there
were any consensus in the Congress about budgetary matters as this year
began, it was that we wanted to leave behind the era of deficit
spending. To further that effort, many of us asked to be included in
the process of developing our government's budget for fiscal year 2002
and beyond. The rhetoric that prevailed led us to believe that the
budget was going to be developed in an inclusive, bipartisan manner.
The Blue Dogs, in particular, were prepared to bring to the table a
plan that would have allowed for a tax cut, for an increase in defense
spending, for solutions for Social Security and Medicare problems, and
for increases in programs for agriculture, education, veterans, and
health care.
At the same time, our proposal would have led to reduction in the
Government's debt, and it provided a cushion sufficient to guard
against unforeseen circumstances pushing us back into deficit spending.
Mr. Chairman, our expectations for bipartisanship were not met; and
whatever its other flaws, the Congressional budget clearly failed to
prepare for the circumstances we now face. As a result, we are moving
forward today with essentially no budget. Once again we will be adding
to our Nation's debt.
Mr. Chairman, for all practical purposes, we have no budget. We are
approaching major spending decisions without a plan. In the confusion,
however, there is an opportunity to develop this unity budget; and if
my colleagues need a model for the development of a new budget, they
need to look no further than the process used for developing the bill
which we present today.
The American people are asking us to be unified, and now more than
ever we have a clear obligation to the taxpayers of this Nation to make
the best of our resources. In that spirit, I urge our leadership and
the administration to begin the process of developing a new budget so
that discipline and some kind of rationale can guide our fiscal
decision-making.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 is a good bill. It is good for America's
farmers while providing predictability for our taxpayers. It would fit
within the budget I have just described. It greatly expands USDA's
conservation programs while extending and improving the food stamp
program. In addition, it renews our emphasis on the importance of rural
development and agricultural research.
In closing, I would like to once again thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) for his leadership and skill in developing a consensus
product. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Rural Development and Research.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2646 and its conservation title, what might accurately be
described by some as the greenest ever.
American farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists of
this country. We are the people the farm bill is intended to help. The
farm bill's purpose is to assist in providing us with the tools to
competitively produce food and fiber in the domestic and world markets.
Furthermore, Congress encourages producers to do so in an
environmentally friendly manner, while continuing to provide the
American consumer with the cheapest, safest and most reliable food
supply in the history of the world.
After listening to 23 organizations and coalitions testify at three
subcommittee hearings, and in an effort to accommodate the American
producer and the environment, I laid out a plan in my own conservation
bill to help producers and the American public by providing sound
assistance to U.S. producers.
It is critical to remember that not just one time but many times
numerous groups asked us to place more money than we were able to place
in every single existing program, and in most new programs.
On the committee, both Republican and Democrat members worked to find
a balanced bill so we would not have to come back to Congress and ask
for ad hoc disaster bills year after year. We have found that balance
in the manager's amendment to H.R. 2646.
The centerpiece of the conservation title is the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. Farmers and ranchers have to deal
with a number of State and Federal environmental rules, regulations and
laws; and many just want to be even better stewards of the land.
The current program is only $200 million per year. The livestock
coalition testified before us this year and asked for $2.5 billion per
year. H.R. 2646 provides producers with $1.285 billion per year. Fifty
percent of the money goes to crop producers and 50 percent goes to
livestock producers. This is the exact requirement under current laws.
This is the most important working-lands provision in the conservation
title. Crop and fruit and vegetable producers are counting on this
program to help them with all types of conservation efforts.
The problem with EQIP was that there were priority areas that
determined how and where the money was to be spent. If a producer was
in an area that fell outside of these priority areas, chances were slim
to none that they could receive Federal help. By reforming priority
areas and allowing each contract to be considered on its own merit, I
believe that we provided more money in the program that will help
Congress assist all producers fairly and not penalize someone simply
because their county is outside a designated priority area.
The bill provides a maximum of $50,000 per year or $200,000 total
over 10 years for all EQIP contracts. Some people want to ignore large
animal feeding operations and contract growers. It would be hard for
Congress to reach a desired environmental result if we ignore the needs
of some producers. The payment limitation will ensure that the money is
spread out fairly between small, medium, and large operations. As a
matter of fact, the bill even changes EQIP contracts so that smaller
producers can sign up for 1- to 10-

[[Page H6172]]

year contracts. Plus, they can be paid in the same year in which they
sign the contract. Both of these provisions were taken from my bill to
help small producers.
The Conservation Reserve Program is another important program. Many
groups wanted to leave the program at its current level, while others
wanted CRP to increase to as high as 45 million acres. H.R. 2646
reaches a balance by allowing nearly 40 million acres, or 39.2 million
acres, to be exact, into the CRP.
The new Grasslands Reserve Program is another important program based
on my idea that allows 10- and 15- and 20-year contracts. To build
consensus, the full committee added 30-year contracts and permanent
easements. The committee supports permanent easements in GRP because it
is a true working-lands program, not a land-idling program.
The Committee on Agriculture followed the subcommittee's
recommendation by including 150,000 acres per year of Wetland Reserve
Program acreage, a million and a half over the life of the bill. And
yes, it comes with a price tag of $1.84 billion. This is the largest
increase of all of the major programs.
H.R. 2646 provides $500 million worth of funding for the Farmland
Protection Program. Since States must match 50 percent of its funding,
it is hard to gauge whether all of this money will be used or simply go
to the wealthiest States.

{time} 1100

Finally, H.R. 2646 provides $25 million per year, ramping up to $50
million per year for the wildlife habitat incentives program.
My goal as the Conservation Subcommittee chairman was to secure a
large sum of money for the conservation title in the new farm bill. I
am thrilled to stand here today and say that we have an increase of
over 75 percent in funding. The current programs spend $2.1 billion per
year. H.R. 2646 will spend nearly $3.7 billion per year. Yes, $37
billion on conservation over the life of this farm bill.
I heard concerns regarding some of the changes the committee made in
its draft. I worked diligently to address the problems presented to me
by various groups and am happy to say that we found compromise on
issues such as swampbuster regulation and many wildlife concerns.
Furthermore, I worked with the National Association of Conservation
Districts and the committee to reach an agreement on technical
assistance funding.
In closing, I would simply say that this is a zero sum game. If we
need more money in one area of the farm bill, it must come out of one
of the other areas or programs or our own conservation funding.
Simply, Mr. Chairman, support America's producers and the
environment. Support H.R. 2646.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the
chairman of this committee for the wonderful work that they have done
in crafting a bill that is the best that we could do given the
resources at our disposal. I think they did an outstanding job, along
with the staff of the Committee on Agriculture on both sides of the
aisle. I want to compliment them for the great work that they have
done.
Mr. Chairman, the United States of America has the safest, most
abundant, and the most reasonably priced food and fiber supply of any
nation in the world by more than half. We do twice as well in that
respect as any other nation. It is something that we can be very proud
of and very thankful for.
The Farm Security Act of 2001 ensures our ability to continue to
produce our own supply of affordable food and fiber. Without this
assistance to our farmers, production will move offshore, forcing the
U.S. to depend on other nations for our food. This is, in fact, a
national security issue.
I believe, I have not read it, but I am told that there is a story in
a national newspaper today criticizing and ridiculing that idea. If we
did not have the ability to feed ourselves and produce that food right
here in this country, our national security would indeed be threatened.
Nearly every farm organization in the country has endorsed this bill.
They support the 80 percent increase in conservation spending to help
make this the greenest farm bill ever and to make sure that we continue
the effort to improve our water quality, to improve the protection of
our soil, and the air quality in this country.
This will benefit not only rural, but urban communities. It helps
support the rural economy by helping farmers break even. I have heard
many stories in the last few months, and particularly in the last
couple of weeks, and especially just yesterday about this bill just
goes to subsidize farmers and inefficient producers and so-called fat
cat producers.
Mr. Chairman, today no one is getting into farming. If this is such a
lucrative idea and a lucrative piece of legislation, we would have
people lined up trying to get in this business instead of lined up
trying to get out of it. If we do not pass this farm bill this week, or
before this Congress goes out of session, I can tell you that it is a
threat to our ability to continue to feed and clothe this country in an
efficient manner.
I want to be on record as being supportive of this bill, the way it
came out of committee with almost no amendments. There will be an
amendment offered that will attempt to totally reorganize food policy
in this country, and I think we should oppose it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the most active members of our
committee.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 2646, and really
for several reasons.
One is I have been very impressed by the process that the committee
has gone through. This bill has been in development for 2 years. We
have had hearings all across the country. We have had roughly 50
different agriculture, environmental, conservation groups appear before
the committee. They have been asked to write the bill as they see it
ought to be. So everyone has had input. It has not been done in a
closet. I think that the chairman has been very fair in the way he has
approached it.
This is the only comprehensive farm bill in existence in this
Congress or in the Senate as well. It deals with commodities; it
increases conservation expenditures by 80 percent; it deals with rural
development; research increased by 20 percent; and trade.
There are some questions that have been raised already, and I am sure
they will come up later today. Why do we have payments to wealthy
farmers? In Nebraska, there are 54,000 farms. We have roughly nine
entities that receive payments of $500,000 or more. These are multiple
entities where you have aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters, so
they are not single farmers that are receiving this amount of money.
This is one out of every 6,000 farms that receives a large payment.
The return on equity is roughly 4 percent. If you take the government
subsidies out of farming, you go to a zero balance, or below zero.
Three-fourths of our farms in the United States currently rely on off-
the-farm income for survival, so we have both the farmer and the farm
wife often working off farm and most of the time the farm wife, too.
Some have said this is too expensive. Over the last 4 years, we have
averaged $22 billion a year on agriculture. Much of that has been in
emergency payments. In this bill, we will average $17 billion a year
which is $5 billion less, and obviously we have to get away from
emergency payments.
Some have also said why do we provide a safety net for agriculture?
In Europe, the average subsidy is $300 to $500 per acre because they
have experienced what hunger is like at one point or another. In South
America land is $300. The idea is that in the United States our
subsidies are very reasonable, very cheap.
I certainly urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in giving me some time to speak on this issue.
One might ask why a city boy is on the floor dealing with the
agriculture bill. Well, in my State, agriculture is the third largest
industry. In my district, agriculture has a prominent role.

[[Page H6173]]

I deeply care about food and water supply and its price. And, most
important, we are all influenced by agriculture, whether we live in
cities, suburban or rural areas, particularly as it impacts the
environment, as it deals with water, land use and the environment for
us all.
This is an opportunity for us to enter into a new era for
agriculture. The United States launched an unprecedented effort during
the Depression to rescue our agricultural system, and it was a dramatic
success. It has developed the most productive agricultural system in
the world. There is no disputing that. But the problem is that today,
two-thirds of a century later, the system drives decisions to the
detriment of many farmers, consumers, our trade position and the
environment.
The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act was a bad solution to this admitted
problem. We can, in fact, do better. I have met with the agricultural
producers and the people on the board of agriculture in my State. This
summer they were unanimous in saying that the system misses the mark
for them. They do not benefit; the wrong people, by and large, do; they
do not need what we have now, but they do need assistance. I agree with
the Bush administration that this current bill does not hit the mark.
I look forward to a series of amendments that we are going to be
discussing in the course of the day, particularly the Boehlert-Kind-
Dingell-Gilchrest bill that will help us make a modest shift towards
giving what Americans and the agricultural community really need. It is
an opportunity to provide benefit for all farmers, not a chosen few. It
is an opportunity for us to do a far better job of protecting the
environment.
It is true, the underlying bill has an 80 percent improvement or
whatever. But that speaks to the point that we are not adequately
funding the provisions that we have now. We run out of money. There are
people that are standing in line to use it.
I commend the leadership of the committee for the consensus effort
that they have attempted, reaching out. There are some things in this
bill that I appreciate. I urge my colleagues, however, to not settle
for this incremental step. We can take another important step to create
a new direction for agriculture for this new century.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty
Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for the outstanding work they have done to produce this bill
that had to compete with a lot of interests.
The U.S. farm economy is experiencing one of the worst cycles of
depressed prices since the Great Depression, while the costs for major
inputs such as fuel and fertilizer are up 25 percent over the last 4
years. This has resulted in a growing crisis in much of rural America.
Without the disaster assistance funds Congress has provided to farmers
over the last 4 years, thousands of U.S. farmers and ranchers would
have no doubt been put out of business and seen their livelihoods
disappear.
Our producers are some of the most efficient in the world, but they
cannot possibly be expected to compete with their counterparts in other
countries when those countries subsidize their producers at levels much
higher than our own and the tariffs on agricultural products in other
countries are five times higher than those in the U.S.
These represent only a few of the obstacles faced by the Committee on
Agriculture when trying to develop farm bill legislation that would
ensure America's producers are given a proper safety net to allow them
to remain viable, while providing us with the safest, most affordable
food and fiber supply in the entire world. The food and fiber supply
constitutes a major component of our national defense, our national
security, and I do not really care who says otherwise. If you cannot
feed your people, then you cannot defend your people. It is that
simple.
This bill, H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, is the product
of almost 2 years of work by the Committee on Agriculture which held
dozens of hearings throughout the country and here in Washington with
most major farm and commodity groups represented. Over 300 witnesses
presented testimony before the committee.
In the subcommittee I chair on specialty crops and foreign
agriculture programs, we saw the necessity to reform the peanut program
to ensure the survival of the peanut industry in this country and
restore profitability for our peanut producers. We heard from peanut
producers, shellers and manufacturers alike, and critics of the
program, and they all realized it was time for a new program that moved
away from the two-tiered pricing system, which would be impossible to
maintain in the future.
The need for change was real, with tariffs on Mexican peanuts
decreasing each year until they completely disappear in 2008. Also,
Argentina is seeking NAFTA-like access to our market for their peanuts.
Without a change to the current program, increasing imports would
continue to put pressure on domestic production to the point where the
Secretary would be required to lower quotas, which would decrease the
safety net for producers.
We looked to make the peanut program much like other program crops,
combining proven and successful components like the marketing loan and
fixed-decoupled payments with the new counter-cyclical component, while
also providing a quota compensation payment to quota holders. This new
program will provide producers with a safety net that gives some price
protection while also helping to regain our market share that has been
lost to imports. It will also save the industry in this country.
The bill not only contains a strong program for peanut producers, but
strong and balanced programs for all producers of all commodities, in
addition to an improved conservation title, which does indeed receive
an 80 percent increase in funding. The bill also contains strong and
improved trade, nutrition, credit, research, rural development, and
forestry titles.

{time} 1115

The Committee on Agriculture had a lot of hard decisions to make
among many competing interests. What we have developed is a very
balanced bill which works to address the needs that are facing rural
America today.
Again, I say I appreciate the strong leadership that we received from
our full committee chairman and from our ranking member.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I was reminded when we called our farm bill the Farm
Security Act of 2001, which I think is appropriate, I remember Chairman
Kika de la Garza, when I first came to Congress, gave this analogy of
what it meant to secure the Nation by making this analogous story about
going into the bowels of a submarine and how the submarine had secured
the safety of our country. They wanted to know what was the magic of
the submarine being able to sustain so long. They said, as long as the
food lasted. I am reminded that a Nation that cannot feed itself,
indeed, cannot secure its food, cannot secure its population.
In his book The Third Freedom, former Senator and the 1972 nominee
for President candidate was George McGovern. He reflects on the shame
he felt watching a 1968 CBS documentary, Hunger in the USA.
Senator McGovern remembers a young hungry boy silently watching as
his classmate ate his lunch. When the reporter asked the boy what he
was thinking as he stood and watched his classmate eat, the boy
replied, ``I am ashamed.'' He said, ``I am ashamed, because I ain't got
no money.''
Senator McGovern writes that he was ashamed. He, the powerful Senator
who was in authority to do much, he was ashamed. He said, ``I felt
ashamed, because I had not known more about hunger in my own land. I
was ashamed that a Federal program, that I was supposed to know about
and allowed, permitted youngsters to go hungry; and as they watched
their paying classmate eat before their eyes they felt ashamed that
they had no money.''
Well, I rise today to tell my colleagues that while the problem of
hunger, both in the United States and

[[Page H6174]]

abroad, continues to plague us, this bill takes significant steps to
alleviate and to mitigate the suffering of millions, millions, of
people. I hope no one feels ashamed that they have voted for this, but
feel empowered as human beings that they have allowed people to eat.
I want to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the committee for
working to ensure that this farm bill, like past farm bills, includes a
nutritional title. Once again we can see the powerful connection
between American agricultural producers and working families who
struggle to put food on the table.
We also can see the connection between a large segment of this
Congress, who have no farmers in their area, in fact, the vast majority
of our Members have no farmers in their area, but they do have hungry
people in their area, and this farm bill makes the connection between
those who are struggling to put food on their table and the producers
who produce the food for them to eat.
H.R. 2646 makes several significant changes to the food stamp
program. In fact, this bill provides one of the most significant and
sensible investments in the program in recent years. The improvements
are bipartisan and they are supported by nutritional groups throughout
the Nation, as well as State administrators alike. As in the past, we
can see today that hungry people transcend partisan divide. There is
not a Republican nor a Democratic view on this.
I am especially happy to know that this bill provides transitional
benefits to families leaving welfare for work, thus supporting the aims
of welfare reform and ensuring that we support those families who make
a good faith effort even to enter the workplace. The bill updates the
standard and the deduction and simplifies the operation of the program,
much to the delight of those who administer the program.
All in all, while the nutrition title does not by any means include
everything that some of us, including myself, would have wanted, it is
a good compromise, a sensible compromise, a bipartisan compromise, and,
most importantly, a compromise that will benefit millions of Americans
who live under the spector of hunger day in and day out.
I would like to also briefly note that this bill includes another
important authorization in combination with the Committee on
International Relations, the Global Food for Education Initiative, also
known as the McGovern-Dole International School Lunch Program. This
important program exports to developing countries what we have already
learned here, that good nutrition is a foundation of learning. This
provides millions and millions of young children in developing
countries, whether it is India, Africa, or China, to have the
opportunity of having nutrition be a part of their learning experience.
I look forward to continued work to see the implementation of this
important program.
Once again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for
their effort, and the committee. They have been fair and they have
worked hard with me to ensure that the farm bill does not leave behind
millions of Americans and also have offered the opportunity that both
our commodities and our compassion will be seen in foreign countries.
I urge my colleagues, those who support hungry and working families,
to also support the Farm Security Act of 2001.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the chairman of the Subcommittee on General
Farm Commodities and Risk Management.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646,
the Farm Security Act of 2001.
The Farm Security Act is the result of the undying passion of the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for the betterment of American
agriculture. The comprehensive bipartisan process that was participated
in by my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) gave us
Committee on Agriculture members the opportunity to listen to producers
all across the country. The open door process gave us the ability to
craft a balanced bill that is good for all.
The Farm Security Act is a culmination of 2 years work. The House
Committee on Agriculture has held 47 field hearings and one forum
between March of 2000 and July of 2001 in preparation for this farm
bill.
In the full committee, field hearings held across the committee this
year, and the hearings held by the Subcommittee on General Farm
Commodities and Risk Management this year, producers expressed to us
their desires to continue planting flexibility and also to establish a
safety net. The commodity title of H.R. 2646 does just that. It
preserves the planting flexibility from the current law; it provides a
safety net for commodity prices; it significantly reforms the peanut
program and puts it on par with traditional commodity programs.
The safety net provided in the bill is a more responsible way of
providing assistance to producers. Rather than sending off-budget, ad
hoc assistance to farm country, which we have done over the last
several years because it has been absolutely needed, a countercyclical
mechanism will provide economic assistance when triggered.
The commodity title is a plan that is ideal, not only for Texas, not
only for Georgia, but good for the whole country. And in the words of
Dean Gale Buchanan of the College of Agriculture at the University of
Georgia, ``It is important to realize that while farmers are directly
impacted, the magnitude and importance of agriculture ultimately
touches every single American.'' Over 80 national and regional
producer, processor, banking, and environmental groups have voiced
their support for the Farm Security Act.
Some groups which are unfamiliar with agriculture and farming, will
try to make you believe that big farms are bad farms; that these big
farms are corporate farms rather than family farms. Well, I want to
give you an actual example of what is sometimes referred to by the
opponents of agriculture of a corporate farm that is actually a family
farm.
This is a farm that exists in the State of Alabama. I have titled it
the Walker Farm. There are three brothers who are the primary farmers
in this operation. This operation this year tills 7,000 acres, and it
is comprised of these three brothers and their children, a total of
seven individuals who are actually engaged in farming under the FSA
regulations. Each one of those thus is responsible basically for a
1,000-acre operation, but this in and of itself is looked to as a
corporate farm.
What we have here is we have Mike Walker, who is the primary operator
of the farm. His wife, Michelle, is actively engaged in the operation
because she keeps all the books, and she has for years. His brother,
Jack, is part of the farming operation, is actually one of the guys who
drives a tractor on a regular basis; and, again, his wife Jill
participates in the bookkeeping and management operations of the farm.
They have another brother, Paul, who is an active participant. Then
each of them have children and wives of those children that are
actively engaged in farming.
This particular operation this year had 7,000 tillable acres, and
they grew peanuts, cotton, hay, and corn. These individuals
participated in the crop insurance program, which was of benefit to the
local community, provided funds in the local economy through the
insurance industry. They participate in all types of conservation
practices, like no till farming, like terracing their land. They are
good stewards of the land.
They, in addition, participate in the Boll Weevil Eradication
Program, which is a program that is creative and innovative that the
government put in place several years ago, that has allowed cotton
farmers all across the country to eradicate the boll weevil, which has
been a significant problem for years.
At the same time, these farmers have challenges. They have challenges
that the ordinary businessman does not have, challenges like drought.
For the last several years in our part of the country, we have had
significant drought, and that has been one of the reasons why we had to
come forward with disaster programs in this town to send out to ag
country.
In addition to drought, on the opposite end of that, at the end of
the year we have been subject to having hurricanes. Once we had the
drought, then it came time to harvest the crop, and

[[Page H6175]]

hurricanes blew in from the Gulf of Mexico and did not allow the
farmers to get into the field to harvest what crops they did make.
These are the everyday challenges that farmers all across America have
to face.
Land acquisition is another problem. Land that our folks have rented
in past years is now being developed. They simply are having to pay too
high a price for land when they buy it, and they are having to pay too
high a price when they rent it, because it is now being developed from
a commercial standpoint because farmers cannot make a living.
The other issue that is critically important in agriculture today is
low commodity prices. Commodity prices are currently at the lowest
point they have been in the last 30 years.
I asked some of these Walker folks about some particular issues they
deal with. I asked Mr. Walker about cotton prices, for example, which
today are the lowest they have been in the last 16 years. He said,
``Most farmers are going to have to make extraordinary yields this year
on cotton production just to break even.''
I said, ``Well, what about the size of your operation? Why are you a
7,000-acre operation?''
He said to us, ``Staying in business required getting bigger. Our
margins per acre are so small that in order for our family to make a
living, we had to keep growing.''
I asked him about surviving. What about survival of the family farm?
He said, ``We don't indulge in extravagancies. When it is possible,
we reinvest in the business. We are still here today because we work
together, we have continued to adapt to change, and we have reinvested
in our business.''

{time} 1130

Now, I come from a State where agriculture is the number one
industry. My home county is the most diversified agriculture county
east of the Mississippi, and I know firsthand what the problems are.
The problems are real. This bill addresses the problems that farmers
all across America have by providing a safety net; and, Mr. Chairman, I
urge its passage.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am a proud member of the Committee on Agriculture,
and I am a representative from the State of Wisconsin. In Wisconsin,
the dairy industry is still the number one industry in the entire
State. The district I represent, the Third Congressional District of
western Wisconsin, has approximately 10,500 family farms still
existing, still operating, today, all of which are producing some
commodity crops. Therefore, I have had a strong interest, and all of
the members of the committee have had a strong interest, in putting
together a farm bill that is going to provide the assistance that our
family farmers need across the country and not just in one particular
region.
In Wisconsin, over the last couple of years, we have been losing
between four and five family farms a day, because of the low prices,
because of the low milk prices, because of low commodity prices. So
obviously, the farm bill that we have been operating under over the
last 5 years has not inured to the benefit of most family farmers
across the country. That is why I feel that it is time for a new
approach with farm policy.
I certainly appreciate the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest); and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm); and all the members on the committee throughout
the course of the last couple of years in putting together a
comprehensive farm bill approach for the next 10 years. It has got to
be one of the most difficult jobs in this place to do, to deal with all
of the competing interests and all of the competing ideas and the
policy proposals, and how do we weave that into a workable document to
reach consensus. I commend them for their work, and I commend them for
agreeing to an open rule, so that we can have an honest discussion and
policy debate on some points of difference that some of us might have
in regards to the direction that the base bill would take us in over
the next 10 years.
That is why I am going to be offering an amendment, along with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that
would take a little bit of the money that would go to an increase in
the commodity subsidies to the largest producers in this country and
move those resources into the voluntary and incentive-based land and
water conservation programs. We do that to help more family farmers in
all regions of the country, especially those regions and farmers who
are currently excluded under the current farm bill and would continue
to be excluded under the direction of this new farm bill. We think that
is the fair thing to do. We think the equitable thing to do is to
include more regions and more farmers in supporting them in their time
of need.
Why is this important? Well, we can provide economic assistance to
more farmers, including large commodity producers, through these
conservation programs. They would still qualify under these programs,
but we would also derive a certain societal benefit through better
watershed management, quality drinking supplies, the protection of
wildlife and fish habitat and, ultimately, the protection of valuable
cropland itself through the farmland protection program that would
receive more resources under our amendment. We are hoping that the next
crop that is planted on these family farms is not a shopping mall,
because we see the unbridled sprawl and the loss of productive farmland
occurring throughout the country today.
So I would encourage my colleagues to listen to the debate on this
amendment and I ask for their support; and I again commend the
leadership, given the work that they have put in thus far on the farm
bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has a tremendous interest in agriculture, as
well as being the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the Farm
Security Act of 2001. This is important to meet the needs of our
changing national agricultural community, and it is within the
framework of the budget resolution that we passed earlier this year.
The fiscal year 2002 budget provided for this important bill $7.3
billion in fiscal year 2002, and $40 billion over the first 5 years and
$73 billion over 10 years. This is on top of the $5 billion it provided
for agriculture emergencies in 2001. The budget resolution accommodated
these amounts by establishing a 302(a) allocation for the Committee on
Agriculture for fiscal year 2002 that could be used at the committee's
discretion for emergency relief and could also be used to authorize
this farm bill.
This is the context in which we find ourselves here today. The
Committee on Agriculture, under the leadership of Chairman Combest and
Ranking Member Stenholm, have done yeoman work over the last 10 months
and beyond to bring us to this particular point.
For those people, including the administration, who wandered up here
to Capitol Hill today and said, why are we doing a farm bill: they have
not been paying attention. I was shocked moments ago to get a statement
of administration policy that makes it sound like they do not know why
we are doing this.
When the Agriculture Secretary came before my Committee on the Budget
earlier this year, we put her on notice that we were going to write the
farm bill this year; we were going to budget for it this year; that
farmers were tired of ad hoc emergencies on top of ad hoc emergencies;
that we were tired of administrations in the past who got new farm bill
legislation and then did not implement it; we are tired of the fact
that we are writing farm bills during a time of contracting markets
overseas and thinking that a farm bill, in and of itself, will solve
the problem, because we are not expanding our trade, the farm bill does
not work. When we do not implement the farm

[[Page H6176]]

bill, how can we expect farmers to survive under this kind of a
situation?
I know that there are people around the country that are waking up
today finding out for the first time, maybe in quite a few years, that
their 401(k) has collapsed. This is not news that the economy is in
trouble in farm country. It has been that way for over 4 years. So for
the administration or anybody else to wander to this floor today and
express disbelief and wonderment, why are you writing a farm bill,
because it is time to react to a very serious situation in farm
country.
Now, I will tell my colleagues that there is no farm bill that these
two gentlemen and their committee could have created that would solve
all of the problems. First of all, one size does not fit all. We all
know that. Every farm is different, every ranch is different, every
producer is different. They have different needs. There is not one farm
bill we could create, particularly by a committee or by a Congress that
could address it, but they have tried. They have addressed the trouble
from the last few years. The countercyclical nature of agriculture,
they have addressed it in this bill. Is it perfect? Of course not. Of
course it is not perfect.
But for people to say after 10 months of work to all of a sudden wake
up today and say, oh, my gosh, you mean to tell me they are writing a
farm bill up there on Capitol Hill? You mean to tell me that we are
actually budgeting for these things instead of just shelling out money
on an emergency basis? For people to wake up and assume that is a
mistake, and it is a pattern that troubles me that this administration
may be, in fact, falling into a similar trap of previous
administrations.
If this administration fails to implement, fails to expand these
markets, and fails to react to the changing economics in farm country,
we will not be able to compete in the global markets.
Pass this bill. It fits within the budget. It deserves our careful
attention during this economic situation across the country.

introduction

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646, the Farm
Security Act of 2001. This important legislation meets the needs of our
Nation's agricultural community within the framework established by the
budget resolution.
I take special interest in this bill, not only as a representative of
an agricultural district, but also as the chairman of a committee that
worked very hard to establish a fiscal framework under which this bill
could be considered.

assumptions in the budget resolution on farm bill

This fiscal year 2002 budget provided for this important bill $7.3
billion in fiscal year 2002, $40.2 over five years, and $73.5 billion
over ten years. This is on top of the $5.5 billion it provided for
agricultural emergencies in fiscal year 2001.
The budget resolution accommodated these amounts by establishing a
302(a) allocation for the Committee on Agriculture for fiscal years
2002 that could be used at the committee's discretion for emergency
relief or reauthorization of the farm bill. It set aside the rest in a
reserve fund that can only used for a reauthorization of the farm bill.
In providing the necessary funds for this bill, the Budget
Committee's interest was both in meeting the immediate needs of our
Nation's farmers for the fiscal year just concluded and in facilitating
efforts to overhaul or Nation's agricultural support system.
While the budget resolution left the details of the farm bill to the
Agriculture Committee, it was carefully crafted to encourage efforts to
address the underlying weaknesses in existing farm programs instead of
resorting to the ad hoc emergency assistance of recent years.

policy issues

As you know, the Committee on Agriculture already availed itself of
$5.5 billion of the resources provided in the budget resolution when it
reported legislation providing additional farm income support payments
in fiscal year 2001, which was enacted in August of this year.
The committee now brings before the House a bill that addresses some
of the longer term problems confronted by the agricultural community.
It does so by combining fixed crop payments with counter cyclical
assistance. This affords our Nation's farmers a more stable source of
income, given the wide market fluctuations we've seen in the past few
years. I believe that this approach provides both the planting
flexibility of the Freedom To Farm Act and the income stability of
traditional agricultural programs.
At the same time, the bill addresses some of the broader needs of
rural America by reauthorizing key conservation programs.
Obviously everyone can find something to disagree with in a bill as
comprehensive as this. I for one will encourage any future conferees on
this bill to fine tune some of its policies. Nevertheless, this bill
represents huge progress over the ad hoc emergency assistance of the
last four years.

budget implications

As the Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am especially pleased that
Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm and the entire Agriculture
Committee have succeeded in developing these reforms within the
appropriate levels established by the budget resolution.
As modified by the manager's amendment, the bill would increase new
budget authority by $3 billion in fiscal year 2002, $35.8 billion
through fiscal year 2006 and $73.1 billion through fiscal year 2011.
As permitted under sections 213 and 221 of the budget resolution (H.
Con. Res. 83), I am exercising my authority to increase the Agriculture
Committee's 302(a) allocation to the levels necessary to permit the
consideration of this bill. The letter making the adjustment has
already been submitted for printing in the Congressional Record.

compliance with budget resolution

According to estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office,
this bill comes in under the Agriculture Committee's adjusted
allocation by fully $4.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $4.4 billion
over five years.
Accordingly, the bill fully complies with section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of measures
that exceed the reporting committee's 302(a) allocation.
Although bills such as this are only required to meet the first and
five-year limits imposed by the budget resolution in the House, I would
observe that over 10 years the bill comes in almost $367 million under
the levels assumed in the resolution. Clearly the Agriculture Committee
went to considerable pains to comply with both the letter and spirit of
the budget resolution.
While I would observe that this bill exceeds the budget resolution's
$66 billion threshold cited in section 313 for the cost of the farm
bill over the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2011 by around $3
billion. This overage is more than offset in fiscal year 2002, when the
bill uses up only $3 billion of a $7 billion allocation.

conclusion

Once again, the Farm Security Act is a unique measure that manages to
address many of the needs of our Nation's farm community within the
fiscally responsible framework of the fiscal year 2002 budget
resolution. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman
and the ranking member for their commitment to bring about a complete
farm bill with all titles. This bill is the fruit of dedication and
commitment that committee members have for the people that this House
represents. I applaud the committee's work to increase funds to titles
such as conservation, rural development and trade, all of which are
extremely important areas for the Nation and for the people of Puerto
Rico that I represent, especially our farmers and growers.
I would like to emphasize the importance the nutrition title
contained in this bill has for the 430,000 Puerto Rican families that
depend on nutrition assistance to keep their children fed and healthy.
Title IV reauthorizes the Nutritional Assistance Program, better known
in Puerto Rico as PAN, for the next 10 years, with increases in funding
for each year. The Puerto Rican nutritional assistance program serves
the same purpose in Puerto Rico as the food stamps program serves in
the States: to reduce hunger, to improve the health of our children,
and ensure our Nation a brighter future. We cannot afford hungry
children in our school rooms. Nutrition assistance is an essential
foundation for building a better future for all of us. Especially in
today's changing world, ensuring that every family has food on their
table no matter what financial circumstances beset them is of utmost
importance.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members of this House to vote in favor of
this bill, and especially support the efforts to guarantee a decent
meal to every family in Puerto Rico and across the Nation. I am very
thankful that this farm bill assures this for every American.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South

[[Page H6177]]

Dakota (Mr. Thune), a very active member of the committee.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me just say what has already been said and that is that America's
farmers need a new farm bill. I appreciate the work that the chairman
and the ranking member on this committee have done in a bipartisan
fashion to put together a bill that is written by producers and for
producers. I appreciate the fact that there have been hours upon hours
and pages upon pages of testimony from producers all across this
country; and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for coming
to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to my home State, to hear from my
constituents. They have listened to producers.
I would also like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
many of the good provisions that are in this bill. We increase
substantially our commitment to conservation, which is something that I
had wanted made a priority in this bill. Other increases in the area of
value-added agriculture, which is something that people in my State are
very interested in, what can we do to revitalize rural economies. And
value-added agriculture is an important component part of that, and
this bill addresses that. Another concern that my producers had is a
countercyclical payment program and that is also a part of this piece
of legislation. My farmers have expressed support for planting
flexibility, something that is retained in this bill.
Now, granted, there are issues that were not addressed in this bill,
things that farmers have expressed concerns about in my State: updating
yield bases, addressing the issue of competition in the marketplace, a
farmable wetlands pilot program that was not made a permanent part of
the CRP program. These are all issues that I hope to address in the
form of amendments as this bill moves forward.
The chairman has kept this committee on a very strict time line and
the farmers of South Dakota thank him for his diligence.
This is a small step in what will be a very long process, we know
that. While this is not a perfect bill, someone around here once said
that we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good in a
place where we are lucky if the adequate even survives. This is a good
start. The farmers across this country need a predictable and stable
farm policy. It is important that we help them secure America's food
security as we move into the future. So it is important that we move
this process along.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Farm Security
Act, farm policy that is balanced, bipartisan, and in the best
interests of our Nation with its rural and urban families.
The Farm Security Act assures that communities, farmers, and families
across America's heartland that farm policy, which encourages
conservation, supports our farmers, and feeds every family, must remain
a domestic priority, even under the international threats we face
today. Heartland security and homeland defense walk hand in hand. This
partnership will remain intact when the House passes H.R. 2646.
Our strength and power is due in a large part to having the most
abundant and the most affordable food supply in the world. America's
farm families have been doing this for years.
The Farm Security Act makes substantial increases to conservation
programs. The well-crafted conservation title increases the number of
acres eligible for the CRP from 35.4 million to 39.2 million acres.
H.R. 2646 increases eligible WRP acreage by 133 percent, or 1.5 million
acres. Under the conservation title of the farm bill, sufficient funds
are available to expand the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and
finally end the program backlog.
The Farm Security Act supports America's forests as well as its
croplands. H.R. 2646 increases the ability of the Forest Service to
protect our forests and communities from wildfire devastation through
the National Fire Plan. In Mississippi's Homochitto National Forest,
this is a real threat to the safety and security of the surrounding
areas.
Heartland security and homeland defense walk hand in hand. H.R. 2646
fulfills our promise to America's communities that consumers' food
should be available and affordable. Our land and our farmers should be
protected.

{time} 1145

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very able member of the Committee.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. We
have taken our time and done it right. H.R. 2646 is a product of more
than 2 years' work by the Committee on Agriculture.
In March 2000, the committee held field hearings in my home State and
many others. Many producers and agricultural groups testified as to
what they wanted to see in the next farm bill. They said they wanted to
keep their planning flexibility that was part of the 1996 bill. This
bill does that.
They said they wanted an economic safety net that provided
countercyclical assistance through times of low prices that farmers
have faced during these past 4 years. This bill does that.
They said they wanted a bill that will help them export their
products to overseas, open new markets for North Carolina's valuable
agricultural products. Again, this bill does just that.
Finally, they asked for increased spending in conservation programs.
Many producers in North Carolina have taken advantage of the successful
conservation programs in past farm bills. I am proud to say that this
bill provides more spending in conservation than any other farm bill in
history, 80 percent more, to be exact. These programs will go far in
achieving cleaner water, cleaner air, cleaner soil for our farmers and
our communities.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts
coming to all the counties in our district, and also for lending the
support that our farm community needs. This is a good bill. I strongly
urge its support.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
(Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security
Act of 2001. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their hard work on this balanced farm bill; and as a member of the
Committee on Agriculture, I was pleased to have been a part of crafting
this new farm bill.
This important piece of legislation will govern the funding and
reauthorization of programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture. This bill is a product of 2 years of bipartisan work that
included extensive input from a wide spectrum of agriculture and
conservation groups.
This farm bill will benefit farmers in my congressional district of
central and southern Illinois, as well as across the country. This bill
provides a continuation of agriculture programs, presents a balanced
approach to addressing the issues that face producers of crops,
livestock, fruits and vegetables, and provides a needed $73 billion in
additional funding for agriculture, which has been facing historic low
prices, low income, and increased costs.
As vice-chairman of the Sportsmen's Caucus, I feel this legislation
is a balanced approach to meeting conservation needs. This legislation
provides an unprecedented 80 percent increase in soil and water
conservation programs above current spending levels.
The 2001 farm bill provides producers with more options to implement
progressive, conserving practices on their land, with a bank of
increased technical assistance to producers using any private or
government contractors.
Several conservation programs were increased in this bill, such as
the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program, and Grasslands Reserve Program. These
increased levels firmly meet the needs of America's family farms.
While this is not a perfect bill, I am pleased with the balance that
was

[[Page H6178]]

struck between the commodity title and the conservation title. I feel
this bill will work in the best interests of the agriculture community
and that producers will have an adequate safety net to rely on when
times are hard.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to join me in support of H.R. 2646, the
Farm Security Act of 2001.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a good hand, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to rise in support of this bill. Today
we are going to have a debate about farm policy. Many of the people who
are going to get involved in the debate have not been involved in the
hearings and listening sessions we have had around the world in the
last couple of years.
Let me compare what is happening to American farmers to what is
happening in the world market. Many people are saying, why do we
subsidize agriculture here in the United States?
The truth of the matter is, most farmers do not like subsidies,
either. They want to make their living from the market; but it is not a
level playing field, Mr. Chairman. We need to understand that. The
latest numbers that we have here in the United States, we subsidize
agriculture to the tune of about $43 an acre. In Europe, they subsidize
agriculture $342 an acre. That is not a level playing field.
Our trade negotiators in the last round of the Uruguay trade talks
agreed to limit the United States' export enhancement funding to about
$200 million. In Europe, it is $6.5 billion. That is not a level
playing field.
In the area of currency, right now we are at a disadvantage to the
Canadians of about 23 percent; the Brazilian real, it is 55 percent. If
there were a level playing field out there, we probably would not need
to do as much as we are doing.
This bill is about predictability. I want to congratulate the
chairman and the ranking member. It is about predictability for our
farmers; but most importantly, it is about predictability for us on the
Committee on the Budget and here in Congress.
With a countercyclical payment program, when prices are high, it will
be less expensive to us. When prices are low, then we are going to have
to subsidize a bit more. But at the end of the day, it will provide
predictability for the Committee on the Budget, for the Congress, and
most importantly, for our farm producers.
This is a good farm bill, just as it is. Some people are going to
say, we do not spend enough money on conservation. Mr. Chairman, this
bill will increase conservation programs by 78 percent. Some will say
that that is not enough. I disagree. There will be negotiations between
the House, the Senate, and the White House as this bill goes forward;
but I hope we can move it off the floor today just as it is written.
This is a good bill. It ought to pass today as written.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of this bill. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member and all the members of the Committee on Agriculture for the hard
work and the tremendous leadership they have provided in coming up with
the final bill here.
As has been said before, we have spent 2 years working on this bill,
and it is not perfect. If any of us that are from farm country wrote
this bill, we would probably write it a little differently; but it is
what is possible.
The farmers in my district not only support this bill, they need this
bill if they are going to survive. We have had a lot of problems up in
my country, and this is one of the things that we really need to make
it out to the long term.
One of the most important things this bill provides is stability. We
have been through a period where we have had a lot of problems, and
every year we respond; but it is after the crop year, and it causes
problems because people at the beginning of the year are not really
sure what we are going to do.
One of the most important parts of this bill is that they are going
to know before they plant their crop what the Government involvement is
going to be and what the safety net is going to be. That is a very
important feature of this bill.
Another thing that this bill includes is a dairy provision, the only
dairy provision that all dairy farmers support, and that is, the
extension of the $9.90 price-support system for the next 10 years.
There has been a lot of discussion already about conservation. I want
to talk a little bit about that. There is a big increase in this bill
for conservation. Over the last 2 years, the Sportsmen's Caucus, which
I have had the privilege to co-chair the last 2 years, has worked with
the wildlife groups on these conservation measures.
I want to say that the Sportsmen's Caucus and most of the wildlife
groups are supporting this bill and the conservation provisions that
are in this bill because what we are doing is we are putting money into
the programs that are already there, that we know work, and that there
is a backlog for.
For example, the Conservation Reserve Program, this bill increases
the cap there 3 million acres. That means we are going to have another
four or five sign-ups of CRP, which has been arguably the most
successful conservation and wildlife program in this country's history.
We increase the WRP almost 50,000 acres a year, which will allow us
to catch up the backlog that is in the pipeline for WRP.
We increase the WHEP program, the Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Program, by $385 million, to work on the 3,087 applications that are
waiting in that program.
We also establish a Grasslands Reserve Program, which is a new
program that will allow grasslands that have never been broken to be
put into long-term contracts to be preserved, and also to take some of
the grasslands that were broken up, put into production, and then put
into CRP, really in a way that should not have happened, allow them to
get back into the grassland program and restore that land to
grasslands.
Lastly, we put significant new money into the EQIP program, which has
a backlog of 196,000 applications.
This bill is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. I ask my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very active member of the Committee.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) on their work on
crafting a bipartisan solution to a number of agricultural problems.
There is an old proverb that when there is food, there are many
problems. When there is no food, there is only one problem. We have the
luxury of having this debate on the floor today. We in America grow the
safest, cheapest, most bountiful, healthful, and abundant food supply
the world has ever known. If Members do not believe me, the next time
they sit down to a big meal, look at each of the items on our plate and
think about what it took to go through all of the processes to get it
there.
We have been so far removed from the land in our country that we have
forgotten what it takes to produce the food and fiber that this economy
depends on. Where tillage goes, civilization follows, Mr. Chairman.
As we have moved away from the land, we have an entire generation of
young people who think that milk comes from the grocery store, that the
hamburger committed suicide. Beyond even agriculture, they think that
electricity comes from a switch, that gasoline comes from a pump. There
is little or no concept that men and women get up before the sun comes
up all across this Nation to make agriculture happen; that young people
grow up and go to school and get science degrees to be better farmers,
to be more efficient users of the inputs, to be more gentle on the
environment as we produce that safe and abundant food supply.
It is a dangerous precedent, but we have the luxury of having this
debate about the future of agriculture because those farmers are so
efficient. There are people all around the world, even our enemies who
we are about to drop hundreds of millions of dollars of food

[[Page H6179]]

upon, who would kill to have the luxury to argue over whether or not to
spend more on cotton or soybeans or sugar or peanuts or wheat. We have
that luxury because we have a generation of Americans who get up every
day to produce that food and to make it happen.
It is important for us to keep in mind, when we talk about
commitments to conservation and commitments to the environment, that
those water recharge areas are on farms, that those wildlife habitats
are on ranches; that the original stewards of the land are landowners
and farmers; that the reason why we have debates about government
ownership of land is because some private person, some farmer, some
rancher for generations has taken care of the land such that it is
worth buying and preserving forever.
This is the farm bill, not the environmental bill, not the
conservation bill. This is the farm bill. It is about making sure that
America's food security is sound, so that we do not become dependent on
food and fresh fruits and vegetables and meat and dairy the way that we
are for oil and gas, lest we ever forget the lessons of history about
being dependent upon a foreign Nation for our food.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley).
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me. I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), for their work on crafting this proposal.
I am going to vote for this measure today on the floor, or when we
vote on final passage; but I also want to assure Members that there is
more work that we need to do on this bill before it is going to be
drafted in a responsible manner that can, I think, give us great
confidence that it is the best policy for agriculture when it is signed
into law.
This bill does take the appropriate direction in terms of moving
forward with an increased investment in conservation, nutrition, as
well as rural development; that those are important components of our
rural economy and the fabric of our communities in rural America. I
commend the chairman and the ranking member for moving in that
direction.
I also understand, as a farmer as well as a Member of Congress, that
we are facing as tough times in the agriculture sector as we have faced
in a century. We have the lowest sustained commodity prices that we
have ever seen. Farmers are on the ropes. The additional financial
assistance we are providing through the fixed payments, as well as the
countercyclical programs, are important to these farmers.
However, I hope as we move this legislation through the House in the
next day, and move hopefully into a conference committee with the
Senate this year, that we will be open to making some modifications
that will ensure that this significant increase in investment of
taxpayer dollars will in fact go to the farmers.
I am very concerned that a lot of our programs, and even some of the
programs that are in this bill today, are designed in a way where too
much of that financial benefit is being derived by landowners and has
resulted in increased property values and land grants.

{time} 1200

We are going to be paying $90 billion in fixed payments and
countercyclical payments to farmers over the next 10 years.
Unfortunately, a lot of that money is not going to go to the actual
producers of the crops. In my area is a good example. We have some
farmers who have not farmed an acre of cotton in the last 10 years
that, under this program, could get as much as $125,000 a year for a
cotton payment without ever growing an acre of cotton. I think that is
a problem and I think we need to make some reforms.
Later in the consideration of this bill, I will be offering an
amendment that will provide for a different approach on a
countercyclical program that will ensure that payments go directly to
the farmers, which I think is very, very important.
I am also a little concerned about the special consideration that we
are giving to the peanut program. We will be spending $3.2 billion
additional taxpayer dollars for peanuts, a crop I consider a specialty
crop. A crop that is going to result in having taxpayer payments of
$320 million a year in a commodity that only has a gross annual product
value of $1 billion.
I represent the Central Valley of California that is home to a lot of
specialty crops. I have the almond industry in my district, which is a
$1.8 billion industry. In this bill, they get absolutely no support. I
think that we need to find a way that we can assure greater equity and
that we are providing support to all of our commodities that are
specialty crops in an equitable manner.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding
me time. I appreciate the leadership of both gentlemen from Texas (Mr.
Combest, Mr. Stenholm) on this very important issue.
I am here today in part because I care about farmers and ranchers.
But the reason I care about farmers and ranchers is because I care
about America and I care especially about rural America. What we do
today will affect the outcome of whether or not those farmers and
ranchers are in business next week, next month, next year and for the
next generation.
If Members care about America, they have to care about rural America
as well. The average age of a farmer in Kansas is 58 years old. I have
talked to many young farmers, sons of farmers who want to come back to
the family farm, but because of the economy, it is simply not possible.
There has not been profitability in agriculture for so long that we do
not have anyone stepping forward to replace this generation of farmers
and ranchers in our country.
What that means, in much of America is there are fewer kids in
school, there are fewer shoppers on main street and our rural
communities continue to see a demise in their way of life.
It is that way of life, it is farming and ranching and that rural way
of life throughout our history that has enabled us to pass character
and values from one generation to the next. In very few places in
America today do sons and daughters work side by side with moms and
dads and with their grandparents.
The history of our country, the heritage of our Nation, was built
around the opportunity for that family farming operation, not only to
provide food and fiber to the world, but to provide character and
judgment and values to children and grandchildren.
So when I talk about the importance of agriculture and farming and
ranching in this country, it is important to me that farmers and
ranchers have an economic viability, but it is important to me that
that way of life that they represent, that they exhibit, is preserved
for another generation.
Economic times in agriculture are tough. It is the fourth year in
which the economy has declined. The headline in one of my local papers
this week, ``Kansas Farm Income Falls 38.9 Percent.''
Net farm income in Kansas last year without government assistance
would have been a loss of $6,417. These issues matter to whether or not
our farmers and ranchers can survive with low commodity prices and
terribly high input costs, fuel and fertilizer. It is about farms and
family farms and it is about the communities that they live, shop and
send their kids to school in. This issue is one of many that is
important to rural America.
We care about health care and its delivery in rural America. We care
about access to technology. We care about small business. Certainly we
care about education. Those issues are important, but we have to have
the economic base in our part of the world, in our part of the country
that can support those services. It seems to me in agriculture it is
important to talk about a farm bill and farm policy, but we also have
issues before us related to trade and exports.
Grain and agriculture commodities must be consumed. We can have low
prices and high prices for farm commodities in every farm bill. The
ultimate goal must be to export and to consume grain around the world
and domestically in a way that provides profitability to agriculture.
But we

[[Page H6180]]

face tremendous obstacles as we compete in the world.
One of the realizations that I have come to over the last several
years is that the rest of the world does not play by the same rules we
do. So when we talk about assistance to agriculture and, yes, it is
lots of dollars, it is a lot fewer dollars than what the other
countries, what the European community, what Japan, what Korea, what
other countries in the world provide in assistance to their farmers,
because they understand the importance of agriculture, they understand
the importance of providing food and fiber not only to their own
citizens but exporting around the world.
Look at the charts. When you look at export assistance, we provide a
very small sliver in support of agriculture and exports around the
world. The rest of the countries, in fact, the European community is
83, 84 percent. Ours is 2\1/2\ percent, and yet we tell our farmers to
compete in the world, to farm the markets.
So we need to not only address farm policy, but we have to come back
and address issues of trade, of exports, of sanctions, of our inability
to export agricultural products around the world, and to make certain
that we find new and better uses of agriculture products at home.
Finally, we need to make certain that we do the things necessary to
make certain that agriculture has competition. I am all for the free
enterprise system, but we need to make certain that our farmers are not
caught in the squeeze, as everybody they buy from and everybody they
sell to gets larger and larger.
Mr. Chairman, I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to pass it. I
thank the chairman for the opportunity to address this important issue
today.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I fought hard for an appointment to the
Committee on Agriculture when I got here in January, and I did so
because, one, I understand agriculture. I grew up on my grandfather's
farm. Secondly, agriculture is critical to the economy of my district
in South Arkansas.
This new farm bill was written after months of testimony. It was
written in a bipartisan spirit and it is fair. It is fair to our farm
families. It is fair for conservation. In fact, we increase baseline
spending for conservation by 75 percent. This bill addresses the needs
of our farm families.
We all know that the 1996 farm bill did not work. We might as well
have called it ``Freedom to Fail.''
I will lose farm families and perhaps a few banks in the delta
without this new farm bill. We are already too dependent on foreign
oil. The last thing we need to do is to lose our farm families and
become dependent on Third World countries for our food and fiber. My
farmers do not want to be welfare farmers. They do not want to be
insurance farmers. They simply want to feed America.
This bill ensures America will be there for our farm families when
market prices are down, just as our farm families have been there for
America for many, many generations.
I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence), a very able member of the committee.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) for yielding me the time.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their aggressive
yet prudent approach to writing a bill that Hoosier farmers need, and
if I may say so, with clarity, Hoosier farmers need this farm bill now
and need this Congress to act now in support of this bill.
The House Committee on Agriculture has drafted a bill that is
globally competitive, market responsive and environmentally
responsible. I want our colleagues to know the Farm Security Act is a
product of years of hard work. We listened to farmers and ranchers
during field hearings in my District. We met with hundreds of farmers
in 10 separate town hall meetings alone. This bill was truly written by
America's farmers and ranchers.
My colleagues know that I have always called this body to maintain
fiscal discipline and this Farm Security Act, as we heard the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) describe, fits into the guidelines of the budget
that has been adopted by this Congress and supported by the leadership.
Also, the Farm Security Act is environmentally sensitive. It
increases conservation funding by 80 percent overall, despite some
criticism by certain environmental groups. An 80 percent increase in
conservation spending is a hard number to argue with.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that United
States farm policy is not only about standing up for ranchers and
farmers, despite the sneering from some in the national media in the
left column of The Wall Street Journal this morning.
I believe that farm security is about national security. As we
consider ways and diverse means to strengthen America by strengthening
our economy, we must not only remember Wall Street, but we must
remember rural main street U.S.A. A strong farm economy means a strong
American economy, and a strong American economy means a strong America.
The Good Book tells us, Mr. Chairman, that without a vision the
people perish. I would paraphrase that without a vision for farm policy
over the next decade, many farmers and ranchers will lose their
economic lives, and I stand in strong support of the Farm Security Act
accordingly.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646,
the Farm Security Act of 2001.
First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking
member, for their hard work and dedication in bringing this legislation
to the floor today. This bill not only benefits farmers and ranchers
across the country, but the American consumers as well. It is the most
balanced and fair farm bill that could be produced for all of the
agricultural interests involved.
My congressional District, the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas has
been in a stressed economic situation due to droughts for the past 6
years. Farm families have squeezed budgets to the limit to keep from
being pushed to failure. Farm incomes have declined because of
plummeting commodity prices while production costs continue to rise,
and the rural economy has suffered.
The support in my District for H.R. 2646 comes from all sectors of
the agricultural community including the producers of commodity crops,
livestock, fruits and vegetables, as well as their lenders, equipment
dealers, manufacturers and service companies.
It is imperative that we pass H.R. 2646 today in order for the
legislative process to continue. This bipartisan bill provides the
structure for U.S. agriculture to provide the safest, most reliable
food and fiber supply in the world. It will ensure that U.S. ag remains
competitive in foreign markets. The 2002 farm bill delivers a
comprehensive package that will propel U.S. agriculture into a
dependable and productive future.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), one of the most interested members of our
committee.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am very impressed by the
process that we have used in bringing this bill to the floor. It has
been very bipartisan. We passed it by, in essence, a unanimous voice
vote in our committee. We sought input from every organization that
could have any interest in this bill, whether they be agriculture
conservation or otherwise. It is a very balanced bill that maintains
the freedom to plant, not making the farmers turn off the last two rows
of the corn plan as they go around the field the last time, maintains
the market price, gives a better safety net.
In the past, we have had to have emergency payments. This tries to
come up with a more efficient, effective way of doing that, and I think
it does, and we need to make sure that we are not unilaterally
disarming when our other competitors in Europe and Japan are providing
far more support than we are.

[[Page H6181]]

It has an 80 percent increase in conservation program investments
with good programs like the conservation reserve program, our wildlife
habitat and others. We also have efforts in there to get our price
ultimately from the market so we do not have to depend on government
programs by expending our sales overseas and investing in research, and
it does have good investments in there for rural development with high
speed telecommunications and others.
Many people asked why do we have to do this, but unfortunately, too
many of our people around the country think that bread comes from the
bakery, that meat comes from the meat counter, that milk comes from the
cooler, and that sugar comes in a candy bar, and they have a hard time
understanding this and really wonder why.
I encourage them to think about who they listen to. When your sink is
leaking, you do not call a dentist, and when you have a tooth ache, you
do not call the plumber. Listen to those who have listened to their
farmers. Many Members of the Committee on Agriculture, like me, have
talked to hundreds of farmers since we passed this out of committee.
They support this bill. This Congress should as well.
I support the farm bill and encourage the Members to do the same.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine, Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment both the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
for doing a wonderful job in working this piece of legislation. As a
Member of the committee these last four terms and working on two farm
bills, I have to say I felt the collegiality and productivity of the
committee in this 10-year reauthorization has been something we can all
be very proud about.

{time} 1215

Like anything that we deal with that is this large and covering this
expansive an area, there will be areas of concern.
I first want to compliment the conservation title in the manager's
amendment. I want to compliment the nutrition and WIC provisions that
are here. I want to compliment the export enhancement and market
assessment programs, research, the monies that are going to be
available for colleges and university and land grant facilities, and
especially improving fruits and vegetables and specialty crops.
The areas of concern for me are the dairy and the dairy compact
issues that we are unable to address, recognizing that it was not
necessarily the jurisdiction of our committee, but also recognizing it
is pretty hard to separate agriculture and dairy from each other in
terms of the procedural issues that lie before both committees. Having
only an opportunity between now and the end of the month to be able to
address these issues, I felt it was imperative to work with our
colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to get this issue addressed. So
later today and tomorrow, and as long as it takes, we are going to make
sure that the dairy compact and the issues surrounding it are brought
foursquare in front of this Congress so that we will have an
opportunity to vote up or down on this compact.
I would like to inform the Members that in terms of the compact we
are not talking about forcing anything down anybody's throat. This is
something that has been approved by the State legislatures. Twenty-five
States want this kind of opportunity to provide a floor for dairy
farmers. It is not there if they are doing well, and they are doing
well now; but it is a floor for them so that it maintains their farm
income and their farm viability.
In Maine and in the Northeast, we have seen less reduction in farm
families with the compact, we have seen less production in the compact
area, and we have actually seen less price increases in those compact
areas versus the national average. So it has actually worked in terms
of production, supply and demand, and having the countercyclical
features that our committee has advocated with all of agriculture as we
have tried to develop a 10-year farm reauthorization program.
This is a program that States want, that governors want, and they
have asked us to give them the approval to be able to maintain
something that has been working for 4 years. This program has been
working for 4 years. I ask the Members on both sides of the aisle and
in leadership in Congress to allow us an opportunity to vote up and
down. We were not able to get the amendment protected in terms of the
germaneness issue in the Committee on Rules.
I know the concern of the committee and the membership, where there
is over 160 Members that are cosponsoring this legislation. It is a
very important piece of legislation. It provides a floor for dairy
farms, for small dairy farms, which there are many of. And not just in
New England but in the Northeast and in the Southeast, which also wants
this to be part of their program. So I look forward to that discussion.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves), who understands the difficulties firsthand of
agriculture.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2646, the
Farm Security Act. This is important legislation, critical to our
Nation's farm families. And on behalf of the thousands of farm families
across northwest Missouri, I want to thank Chairman Combest and Ranking
Member Stenholm for their leadership and their efforts in crafting this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I raise corn and soybeans in northwest Missouri, and I
understand all too well the challenges facing farmers today. Every
weekend, when I return to Missouri, I hear from farmers all across my
district who are struggling just to stay in business. Not only are
farmers faced with the 4th consecutive year of record low commodity
prices, costs for inputs, including fuel, fertilizer and seed, have
skyrocketed during the last year further reducing the bottom line.
While the previous farm bill provided flexibility and opportunities
that farmers desperately needed, its provisions for emergency aid were
inadequate. Our Nation's farmers should not have to rely on a
supplemental bailout every year. Producers need support that provides
stability and predictability, and that is exactly what this bill does.
In preparation for today, the Committee on Agriculture heard
testimony from dozens of farm groups representing thousands of
producers all across America. All of them agreed that this bill should
include a mechanism that would kick in automatically when prices fall
below equitable levels. With this bill, and with the countercyclical
program, it eliminates the need for that annual agriculture bailout and
replaces it with a reliable program we can depend on.
In 1996, Congress gave farmers a good bill. However, that bill's
success depended on new and expanding overseas markets. Those markets
never materialized. This bill combines the flexibility and market
stability that farmers need while renewing our efforts to promote
American agriculture abroad without abandoning our previous trade
agreements.
Additionally, this bill strengthens our commitment to the
environment, providing greater resources to ensure that our land, air,
and water remain fertile and clean.
Mr. Chairman, in America we have the safest, most abundant and
cheapest food supply in the world. No other Nation, absolutely no other
Nation in this world today, has the luxury of taking its food supply
for granted.
Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
protect our Nation's food supply, our natural resources, and our family
farmers.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to begin by commending Chairman Combest and Ranking
Member Stenholm of the Committee on Agriculture for their work in
bringing this bill to the House floor.
This has been a tandem that has persevered when others said it could
not be done; persevered in holding hearings, persevered in crafting a
bill, and even in the wake of tragic events thereafter hit our Nation,
persevered in bringing this bill to the House floor, the first major
nonattack bill considered since that morning 3 weeks ago, September 11.

[[Page H6182]]

Since that time, without flinching, we were all proud to stand
together and vote $15 billion worth of relief to the airline industry,
to be spent this year, shoring up the critical component of our economy
that they represent. This bill represents $73 billion over 10 years,
shoring up the family farmer base of our food supply and investing in
our Nation's food supply, every bit as critical a component to our
economy as anything else one can think of.
The way we achieve security, abundant production, highest quality,
and affordability in food supply is with diversified production. And
the way to achieve diversified production is to keep family farmers
right at the heart of who grows the food for this Nation.
Now, worldwide commodity prices have collapsed, collapsed to the
point where what the farmer has been getting at the elevator after
harvest is actually lower than what it costs to grow that crop. Nobody
can stay in business under circumstances like that. And that is why we
see the wholesale departure of families from the land, families that
have been there for generations. Depopulation, meaning we lose so many
people we cannot even support basic infrastructure in critical regions
of the State, is a major issue that North Dakota is dealing with and
other issues through the Great Plains. The way we attack it head on is
to preserve profitability in farming, and that means farmers need some
help.
Let me give my colleagues a little Economics 101 on family farming.
It does not matter how good a farmer someone is, you cannot control the
price of your product. And if you cannot recover even costs, much less
make a little money to put shoes on your kids and pay the light bill,
you cannot stay in business. We are going to continue to drive out the
smaller producer and drive production to larger and larger corporate
enterprises, the enterprises that have the deep pockets to go through
this kind of price trough, unless we have a farm bill that helps our
families stay in the business. And that is what this bill is all about.
I'd have constructed this bill somewhat differently. I hope it is
changed in the Senate and continues to improve as the process goes
forward. But make no mistake about it, the heart of this bill is price
support for family farmers. We have for most of the last 4 years had
price support as part of the farm program. We removed it with the
Freedom to Farm bill, because we hoped that with improving markets that
was not going to be necessary any more. Well, sadly, in a bipartisan
way, we have recognized that support is needed. And that is why over
the last 4 years we have passed $30 billion in disaster payments
helping farmers through these tough times.
There is a better way to go than ad hoc year-to-year disaster bills
that leave the farmer and their lenders and their creditors not knowing
where they stand. The better way is to put it in the farm bill, just
like this bill does, with price supports so the farmers know where they
stand. That is what this bill is all about.
But the bill is about more than helping those who grow the food,
there is a very important component to this bill that helps those who
struggle to afford the food to feed their families. We have made cuts
in the nutrition programs, WIC, food stamps, that have, I believe, been
too severe, that have actually hindered families from obtaining the
critical nutrition they need. We address that in this legislation with
$3.5 billion in additional funding for the food programs to help those
who need to eat to be able to get the food they need to feed their
families. I sure do not want that funding jeopardized, and it is a
critical part of this bill.
As I mentioned, the bill is not perfect, but we are not at a point in
time, colleagues, where perfection can be the enemy of the good when it
comes to moving this farm bill forward. Thanks to the leadership of
Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm, we have new momentum,
represented by having this bill on the floor today, new momentum to
getting farmers the protection they need to stay in business. We have
got to keep this momentum going by moving this bill along and
continuing it down the legislative process.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I am proud to stand with
this bill and commend the Committee on Agriculture for their good work.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture; but I would first like to thank the gentleman from Texas
and his colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and
Foreign Agriculture Programs, for working with me to improve the
provisions of this bill relating to Federal peanut programs.
The fourth district of Virginia is home to one of the largest peanut
producing populations in the Nation. Though I have not been a member of
this august body for long, I have worked hard since being sworn in to
make the views of this community known to the House Committee on
Agriculture during their consideration of this legislation. I have been
very grateful for the cooperation and attention that their concerns
have gotten from the committee.
As reported from the committee, I have very serious concerns that
this bill would severely strain the financial resources of Virginia's
peanut farmers, particularly the small family farmers. While I
recognize that times have changed and that the Federal programs must
adapt as to the farmers that I represent, I remain apprehensive about
the effect that these dramatic changes may hold for the future of
peanut farming in my State.
I appreciate the difficult balance that the chairman and his panel
had to reach in addressing the needs of America's taxpayers at the same
time as meeting the needs of America's agriculture community, and I am
hopeful that I will be able to continue to work with the chairman as
this bill goes to conference with the Senate.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Like the gentleman from Virginia, I recognize and
respect the role that the farmers have played in our Nation's history
and the importance of their work to our national economy. The
development of this bill represents the best package we could achieve
in balancing critical needs for commodity, conservation, trade,
nutrition, credit, rural development, and research programs, while
fitting into the fiscal restraints given to us by the budget
resolution.
I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the peanut provisions of
the bill, and I am pleased that we have been able to work with him to
accommodate some of those concerns. Specifically, we have proposed a
change in the manager's amendment that would allow a producer to
establish a base, at which point the producer would have a one time
ability to set the base on any land that he chooses. This would give
the producer the ability to put the base on land he owns or will give
the producer a better bargaining position if he sets down this base on
the land he rents.
I thank the gentleman for his work and concern on this issue and I
look forward to working with him to continue to address the problems
and concerns that he has of the producers of Virginia as this bill goes
forward to conference with the Senate.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish to thank the
gentleman from Texas for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farm Security Act of 2001.
Though I have some serious concerns with provisions of the bill that
dramatically alter the peanut program, I realize how important this
bill is to farmers across America and that this legislation must still
go through a conference committee. I thank the Chairman for his hard
work.
Our farmers are the heart of our nation, and Virginia's peanut
farmers are the heart of the Commonwealth. Peanut farming is important
to the economic livelihood of Virginia, bringing $55 million in cash-
receipts to the state. Virginia peanuts are in high demand for gourmet-
style fried peanuts and roasted in-the-shell ballpark peanuts that we
all have enjoyed at baseball games. It is important to remember the
peanut program does not just impact farmers who exclusively grow
peanuts but it also dramatically impacts other farmers who depend on
peanut production to keep them alive and all those who insure, supply,
or assist peanut production in any capacity, including

[[Page H6183]]

local governments who depend on taxes from these farms for survival.
There are four specific concerns that I have had with the Committee-
passed bill, and I worked hard with the Chairman to accommodate each of
them.
The first was that the new program would begin with the 2002 crop. My
concern was that there would not be enough time for the farmer to
adjust to these changes, with contracts that have already been made
based on the assumption that the current program would run through
2002.
Second, I was concerned that the bill focused on the farm and not the
farmer. My goal was to see that the base be tied to the producer.
Third, I was concerned that the financial return for the producers
was so low that there would be no incentive for young farmers to enter
the farming business, and that those retiring would not be replaced.
Last but not least, I was concerned that the Peanut Administrative
Committee was being phased out and replaced with a board without the
means to ensure higher quality standards.
Since my swearing in, Mr. Chairman, in late June, I have been working
hard to represent these views to the Committee on behalf of Virginia's
peanut farmers. I have greatly appreciated the full and subcommittee
chairmen's attention to these concerns. I am particularly thankful for
their determination that some of these points warranted changes in the
Committee-passed bill.
Specifically, the manager's amendment includes a provision, which
should improve the overall income that a producer can earn by allowing
the producer to establish the base on any land he chooses. Virginia's
peanut farmers have been farming the land for generations because they
love it. But we must be mindful of the fact that they must be able to
make a living in order to continue doing what they love.
Del Cotton, manager of the Franklin-based peanut marketing
cooperative, said some producers will be happy and others will not with
the proposed quota buyout. I hope Congress will continue to take the
necessary steps to keep the peanut program viable.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize, as do the farmers I represent, that times
have changed and that our federal farm programs must change as well.
But, we must never forget that our farmers have always been the
backbone of this nation.
That was true at our country's founding, and it is true today as we
prepare to wage a long, hard war against terrorism. Food security is
just as vital to our national defense as a strong military and strong
economy. Our farmers are our partners in this endeavor.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman on this
legislation as it goes through conference negotiations with the Senate.
That said, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this
bill and to support the Chairman during conference deliberations.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the
hard work that they and the committee staff have put into this very
important bill. We in Congress have joined the President in urging
America to get back to business, and our job today is a monumental one:
to enact a farm bill that enables farmers and agri-businesses to
survive during this economically challenging decade.
After 4 years of depressed commodity prices and inflationary
production costs, droughts and disasters, our whole agricultural system
is at risk. This is not just rhetoric, it is simple math. Farm income
has not been sufficient to sustain most producers, even though they
adhere to sound farming practices. If it were not for a Federal farm
safety net, the country would have experienced a catastrophic loss of
farm operations and agri-businesses that serve them. Like oil, we would
have become much more dependent on foreign producers for our food and
fiber, the necessities of life.

{time} 1230

Mr. Chairman, the farm bill enacted in 1996 was a visionary bill that
gave farmers greater flexibility, but which failed to provide the help
needed when prices slumped and costs increased.
The farm bill that we consider today continues that same flexibility,
but with a stronger safety net that should eliminate the need for
billions of dollars of ad hoc appropriations. It includes a more
market-oriented peanut program which makes it possible for our growers
to compete as tariff rates decline and that phases out the quota
system.
The bill provides a significant level of compensation to quota
holders within the budget restraints that we face; but I believe the
funding level should be higher, and I will continue to work for that.
It includes a 75 percent increase for soil, water and wildlife
conservation, a food stamp program that includes new transitional
assistance for families moving from welfare to work, $785 million for
rural development, including funds to improve drinking water, expand
telecommunications and promote value-added market development, a 100
percent increase in funding for the market access program helping
producers and exporters finance promotional initiatives abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Farm Security Act
of 2001 and to help ensure a brighter future for America, for rural
America, for our farmers, our agribusinesses, and especially for our
consumers across the country.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I am a
farmer. I have been involved in farm programs since the 1960s, and
never has there been such a complete effort to get the input of
American producers and those associated with agriculture into this
final result, into this piece of legislation.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) held 47 field hearings across the United States, 10 of
those were full committee hearings, in addition to the dozens of
hearings held in Washington. We tried to come up with legislation that
faces a predicament which is now confronting American agriculture. That
predicament is: Do we let other countries subsidize their farmers to
the extent that it puts our farmers out of business?
Right now we are in competition, if you will, with countries like
Europe, who subsidize their farmers five times as much as we subsidize
our farmers. To project what happens with that kind of subsidy, their
additional production goes into what would otherwise be our markets. It
is not a good way to do business.
The taxpayer, one way or the other, is going to end up paying more
for their food supplies to keep farmers producing agricultural
products. One way is through farm subsidies. That is what is happening
in the United States. I mentioned Europe, five times the subsidies as
the U.S. Members can compare that to countries like Japan, which goes
up to almost 12 times in subsidies as we pay our farmers.
Eventually there has to be a more market-oriented solution in all
countries to let the buyers of those products pay for them at the
marketplace rather than through tax dollars distributed through
government programs that are ultimately going to be unfair.
Mr. Chairman, look at this bill carefully and let us move ahead. For
the time being, we have to keep American agriculture in place.
Mr. STENHOLM. 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 Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest), the chairman; and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and staff for all of the hard work that they
have put into this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I traveled the Nation with my colleagues on the House
Committee on Agriculture last year and heard first hand from farmers in
numerous States about the challenges facing them and the way in which
they felt those challenges could best be addressed.
I can state unequivocally that this bill meets the needs of the
farmers we have heard from and provides dramatic new investment in
areas like trade promotion and conservation funding. As has been
mentioned, there is a 78 percent increase in conservation funding.
I spent the summer talking to farmers and ranchers across Idaho; and
with rare exception, they have told me that they want this bill passed
in its current form. They believe that this bill provides them the
flexibility that they need to operate their farms the way

[[Page H6184]]

that they want to; and it provides the predictability they need to keep
their family farms operating for themselves, their children, and great
grandchildren.
Mr. Chairman, it is not without some regret that I say that I wish
the administration had been with me as I talked to Idaho farmers and as
we held field hearings across this great country. I listened as I read
the statement of administration policy this morning, the first
statement that I have heard from the administration on their position
on this farm bill. I was dismayed and disappointed. I would like to
talk for just a minute about the points that they make in their
concerns in this agriculture bill. They make four bullet points.
First, that this bill encourages overproduction while prices are low.
With price supports, we are trying to keep farmers in business when
prices are low. I guess the answer that they have, and they give no
specific answer in their statement of policy, is to let those farmers
go out of business. I certainly hope that is not their policy; but if
they have a different idea, they ought to share it with us.
Their second bullet point is that it fails to help farmers most in
need. They state in their statement of policy, and I quote: ``Nearly
half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8
percent of farmers, usually very large producers, while more than half
all of U.S. farms share only 13 percent of the payments.''
Mr. Chairman, the USDA considers large farms those farmers that have
$250,000 or more gross sales. Those farms account for 15 percent of
farms reporting government payments, and produce 54 percent of the
value of program crops eligible for payments. They are 15 percent of
the farms; they produce 54 percent of the value of program crops. Only
0.5 percent of the large farms were nonfamily farms. The average
transition payments in 1998 for these large farms was $21,870.
These farms received 47 percent of the payments, while producing 54
percent of the value of program crop production. Small farms, those
that produce less than $250,000, on the other hand, produced 46 percent
of the value of program crop production, but received 53 percent of the
payments.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have been going in the right direction
trying to help the small family farms, those under $250,000 in gross
sales. They have gotten a larger percentage of the actual payments.
Also consider that over 77 percent of all large family farms operate
with debt, 80 percent greater than average for all family farms. These
farms carry debt liabilities equal to 47 percent of their maximum
feasible debt load, 54 percent greater than the average for all family
farms.
Mr. Chairman, 12.2 percent of all large family farms have negative
household incomes, 91 percent greater than the average for all family
farms.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a farm bill. Payments are based on
production. Large producers are obviously going to get a larger share
of the payments. They also put more at risk. I think we have been going
in the right direction trying to address this and making sure that we
address the needs of small family farms and all farmers.
The third bullet point from the statement of administration policy is
that it jeopardizes critical markets abroad.
Mr. Chairman, one of the real problems we have in agriculture today
is that we have not been able to level the playing field between us and
our competitors around the world. American farmers are at a competitive
disadvantage to producers in other countries. We all know that. They
get subsidized more in other countries than we support our farmers in
this country. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
This bill enhances our Export Enhancement Program, funds it further;
and we need to create a level playing field. We cannot have a free
market and fair trade when there is not a level playing field. It is a
myth to think that there is a level playing field right now.
I hope that the administration is serious, and I believe they are
serious, when they say that agriculture will be a top priority in trade
negotiations as they try to negotiate new trade agreements in the WTO.
Lastly, they say that this boosts Federal spending at a time of
uncertainty. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has stated,
we reached an agreement on the budget resolution. This piece of
legislation is crafted to stay within that budget resolution. It does
exactly what the Committee on the Budget requested that we do, and I
compliment the chairman and the ranking member for keeping this bill
within the budget restraints that were imposed upon us.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of over 2 years of listening,
learning, and hard work. It is the result of intense commitment,
meaningful debate, and constructive compromise.
Today we have a chance to endorse not only the legislation language
in this bill, but the fair and open process that fostered its
development. We also have a chance to bring new hope to rural
communities and to bring real stability to our Nation's producers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Farm Security Act
for America's farmers.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has
expired.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest) for his utilization.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) will control 5 additional minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farm Security Act of
2001. I cannot say enough good things. I cannot commend the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest) enough for his leadership and for the very
thorough and deliberate manner the gentleman has followed in crafting
this important farm bill.
This bill answers a question, a vital question to this country, a
very important question to the people of this country: Do we want the
American people fed and clothed by the American farmer? That is a
question that is before us because it is possible if something does not
change, that we will not be fed and clothed by the American farmer. We
will have to depend on other nations.
When Congress passes this bill, the Farm Security Act, we are saying
in a very loud voice, yes, we do intend for the American farmer to be
the backbone of our industry in this country, and we will depend on
them for our food and fiber.
Recently American farmers have struggled through increasing
difficulties. It is no secret. Talking to farmers while traveling
through the 10th Congressional District of Georgia, I have listened to
their concerns. The farmers in this country need our help if we want
them to stay in business.
Earlier this year Congress made a firm commitment of support. My
colleagues all remember setting aside $73.5 billion over the next 10
years. We have the opportunity, we should take the opportunity today to
take the next important step.
As evidenced by annual emergency agriculture spending, many policies
in the 1996 farm bill have not been effective. This farm bill is well
balanced and remedies these inequities, addressing critical farm
program needs while also increasing conservation program dollars by
approximately 80 percent.
Within the commodity title, farmers are provided a three-piece safety
net and the option to update base acreage. What that safety net really
is, it is a safety net for the American citizen, a safety net for the
American consumer, not just the farmer, but for all of us who are fed
and clothed by the American farmer. While maintaining the fixed
decoupled payments and the marketing loan payment, this farm bill adds
a countercyclical payment, too.

{time} 1245

This allows the farmer flexibility and security in planning for the
future, a prescriptive answer to many of their concerns that I have
heard since 1996.
Finally, I want to talk about the peanut program just a minute. It is
a critically important issue to Georgians. Recognizing the new
challenges within the program and the need for reform, I am pleased
with what this great committee has done. While it may not be

[[Page H6185]]

perfect in the eyes of everyone, I believe this historic reform is an
equitable one and is well crafted to ensure the viability of the
American peanut farmer.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. farmers have been asking for our help. I am happy
to tell my friends in Georgia that help is on the way. I hope all my
colleagues will vote for this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just want to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
all of the members of the committee and all of the Members not on the
committee who have come over and taken such an active role in this. As
we can see, the interest of agriculture spans well beyond just those
members on the Committee on Agriculture. I thank the gentleman for the
courtesy with his time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this side. I
would just use a portion of the remaining part of my time to emphasize
a few points.
To say I am rather disappointed in the statement of administration
policy today would be the understatement of the day. I believe I am
correct that we have had 47 subcommittee hearings, I know we have had
10 full committee hearings in which at each time we were considering
the various parts of what always ends up being a very controversial
bill, the agricultural bill, I asked what the administration's position
was. We wanted to consider that.
I remember 1995 and 1996 when the committee and the House leadership
refused to allow the administration witnesses in the room when we were
conferencing. We made some mistakes when we did that. We usually do
better legislative work when we have due and proper consideration by
the legislative body with administrative input. I suspect and I hope
and I really believe that we will get that when we get to a conference
on the bill. But to come in the day before, actually a few minutes
after we had passed the rule, by stating your position is not helpful,
especially when you make some specific allegations that this bill
encourages overproduction when prices are low. You have not read the
bill, whoever wrote this. I am sure it was OMB. You have not read our
bill. We deliberately made changes in the loan rates in order that we
might accomplish some of the criticisms of the current bill.
It fails to help farmers most in need. Where were you when we were
asking for recommendations of how we do a better job of that? As we
asked over and over as to farm witnesses and farm groups, how do we
attack this particular problem? Where were you when we asked?
Jeopardizes critical markets abroad. I have been around here now for
almost 23 years. I have seen trade negotiators and trade negotiations
begin and I have listened to administrations in which they have always
emphasized the importance of agriculture when we go into the
negotiations. But I have also noted when they complete that work, that
somewhere over the Atlantic, agriculture is dumped out with a
parachute.
This time around, I said, and it was one of my prevailing judgments
into our bill that we present to you today, I wanted to be sure that
our government was standing shoulder to shoulder with our producers in
these upcoming negotiations, and in the manager's amendment, we
specifically say that if there is anything in this bill that makes us
illegal under WTO agreements, we give the Secretary of Agriculture the
authority to make those changes so that it reconforms, because no one
on the House Committee on Agriculture wants to be part of any law that
causes us to break a law or an agreement that we have agreed to in the
good faith of the United States of America.
Boosts Federal spending at a time of uncertainty. They have got us
there. But let me point out we are boosting it by $2 billion next year.
That is the total. $2 billion. Of which a portion of that, as we heard
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) speak a moment ago,
is designed to do some of the things that both sides of the aisle have
already agreed we need to do, and, that is, to recognize unemployed
people, people who have lost their jobs and need some additional help
in the transition into a new job. That is in this bill. Is it enough?
You can probably say no, it is not. In fact, I predict when we get to
the stimulus package, that you are going to have the administration
agreeing to many more billions of dollars than 2. Why pick on the 2 at
this stage of the game?
We are going to hear a little bit about the sugar program and prices.
Here again, we have the lowest prices for our producers since the Great
Depression, in the last 30 years. I am going to be asking the question
over and over to those that seem to believe that the only thing we can
do to stay competitive is lower our prices, this bill that we bring
forward that is being criticized by those that believe we are doing too
much for the commodities is guaranteeing our farmers 1990 prices. Now,
I ask anyone in this Chamber, anyone listening, anyone downtown, anyone
at any of the newspaper editorials that have criticized us, if you and
your employees are going to be guaranteed 1990 wage levels, how happy
would you be and how exorbitant would your company be? That is what we
do in this bill. Would we like to do more? Absolutely. But we operated
under the good faith restraint of a budget that was passed by this
House. I did not agree with it, but it became the law of the land and,
therefore, I do as I try to do quite often, and, that is, work
together. On the Committee on Agriculture, we do a darn good job at
that.
I commend again the chairman, the subcommittee chairmen, all of the
folks on that side of the aisle and my own colleagues for the spirit in
which we bring this bill to the House today.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, just so the record is clear and for those
people who have not followed this quite as carefully as we have on this
committee, this process started well before the decision about who the
current administration was, I think before either nominee actually even
was nominated. This year, we started very early on in this calendar
year having hearings all throughout the process, asking people what it
was that they wanted.
Let me ask the gentleman from Texas, how many times did the Secretary
of Agriculture or anyone from the Department of Agriculture come before
our committee and give us any suggestions?
Mr. STENHOLM. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chairman, zero.
Mr. COMBEST. The gentleman's recollection is correct.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
2646, the 2001 Farm Bill, but also to express my support for several
amendments that will be offered, specifically the Boehlert/Kind/
Gilchrest/Dingell amendment that would provide a more equitable
distribution of government resources to farms and farmers throughout
the United States, and the Sherwood/Etheridge/McHugh amendment to
permanently authorize the Northeast Dairy Compact.
For most people in this country, talking about farming does not
conjure up images of my home state of Connecticut. For most people,
Connecticut likely generates images of insurance companies, or
submarine and aerospace manufacturers, rather than farms. But farming
is a critical part of the Connecticut economy and our traditions. In
fact, the Connecticut Department of Agriculture estimates that
Connecticut receives a $900 million income from agriculture production,
and adds about $2.1 billion to the state's economy. There are
approximately 4,000 farms holding approximately 370,000 acres of land
in Connecticut. In a state that is only 4,872 square miles, that
represents over 11 percent of our land devoted directly to farming.
In the 370,000 acres committed to farming, Connecticut ranks first in
the nation in the density of egg laying poultry and the density of
horses. We are fifth in mushroom production, seventh in pear
production, eighth in the density of dairy cows and tenth in milk
production per dairy cow. Aquaculture in Connecticut is an $18 million
industry, and the value of oyster farming ranks Connecticut among the
top five in the nation. In addition, nursery and greenhouse production
was valued at $168 million, and bedding and garden plant production was
valued at $50 million in 1999.
Exacting so much agricultural production within such a small
geographic area has meant seamlessly integrating our farms within our
communities and as well as working to

[[Page H6186]]

harvest the resources of natural environment in ways not duplicated in
other places in the United States. But Connecticut is the home of
``Yankee Ingenuity'', and our farmers carry this tradition proudly,
pursuing a dynamic range of enterprises and farming practices that
leave the ``traditional farming'' label far behind. Innovative methods
and creative planning, combined with one of the nation's best and
original agriculture land grant universities at the University of
Connecticut, put Connecticut farms at the forefront of exploring new
ways of agriculture production.
One of the issues that is raised repeatedly in my district and
throughout Connecticut is the increasing ``multifunctionality'' of our
farms. In New England, our farms are not just producing commodities for
direct consumption, they interact with the foundation of our
communities and economy in subtle ways often overlooked by most people.
The open space and rolling hills protected by Connecticut farms are
critical areas of open space in an increasingly urbanized environment.
They provide a continuous source of local community income through a
thriving agritourism industry.
So for all of these reasons, we in Connecticut and the Northeast need
a farm bill that recognizes the needs of our farmers and the region.
The underlying bill has many important programs that our farmers need,
but the Boehlert/Kind/Gilchrest/Dingell amendment greatly improves it,
paying more attention to the diverse and unique needs of farmers in the
Northeast.
I also strongly support the Sherwood/Etheridge/McHugh amendment to
permanently authorize the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Compact, as many
of you know, was authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, but was designated
to sunset in 1999 pending reform of the federal milk marketing order
program, a program that still fails to take into account the needs of
dairy production at small family farms. Therefore the compact is still
needed and Congress has twice extended its authority, the last time
through September 30, 2001. But today is October 3, 2001 and this
Congress, under pressure from special interests, has still not acted to
address this critical issue for the people of my State and instead has
allowed the compact to expire.
Now I understand that opponents are moving to block consideration by
attempting to rule the amendment out of order because it is not germane
to debate in the context of the Farm Bill. Action on the Dairy Compact
is the number one priority for the Connecticut agriculture community.
Legislation to permanently authorize the Compact has been introduced by
Congressman Hutchinson and carried forward by Congressman Sherwood and
Congressman Etheridge that has the support of over 160 cosponsors.
There is strong local support for this bill and this amendment. All of
the state legislatures included in the Northeast Dairy Compact have
approved it, as have the state legislatures in numerous states around
the country who are waiting for this Congress to act so that they can
join and form additional regional compacts.

The compact is necessary because the federal minimum farm milk price
is not sufficient to cover the cost of producing milk in the small
family farms throughout New England, forcing the region's dairy farmers
out of business. Simply put, dairy farming is the lifeblood of the
Connecticut agricultural economy. As dairy farms are forced to close,
demand for feed and other support crops, farm machinery, open space and
agri-tourism all follow suit, creating a devastating and unrecoverable
fallout of the local economy for those reliant on the business created
by dairy farming. The loss of these resources and farms is unacceptable
and irrecoverable, and in my opinion speaking now as a Member of the
Armed Services Committee, a weakening of our domestic national
security.
Despite arguments by opponents, the compact does not cost the federal
government or the taxpayers of the United States anything. This is not
a subsidy program. In fact, the compact specifically, requires the
Compact compensate USDA for the amount of federal price support
purchases it makes a result of potential overproduction of milk, and
for an technical assistance it receives from USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service. Additionally, the Compact reimburses participants in
the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Supplemental Food Program to
offset any increase cost of fluid milk caused by premiums within the
Compact. The Compact is also expressly prohibited from discriminating
in any way against the marketing of milk produced anywhere else in the
United States. As for arguments that the Compact artificially increases
prices, the record has shown that price increases have been negligible
to consumers, who in general have also strongly support the Compact.
The Congress produces a major Farm Bill only once every five years.
Debate and consideration of the amendment is critical at this time and
germane. There is no other more germane legislation within which to
address this issue, and our farmers cannot wait another five years for
the next Farm Bill. It is time for us to have this debate and proceed
with an up or down vote on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Sherwood/Etheridge/McHugh amendment, or at least support
its fair consideration.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the House's attention
an important provision in the bill, aimed at rural development. Section
615 of the bill establishes a National Rural Development Partnership
composed of the Coordinating Committee and the state rural development
councils.
State Rural Development Councils, like the Connecticut Rural
Development Council, were established to promote interagency
coordination among federal departments and agencies that administer
policies and programs that impact rural areas and to promote
intergovernmental collaboration among federal agencies and state,
local, and tribal governments and the private and non-profit sectors.
These local councils have done tremendous work and are an important
local resource for our communities. They continue to prove extremely
successful at local levels, and have worked at the local level to
leverage the roughly $35 million annually appropriated by Congress in
the past into more than $1 billion annually for conservation, as well
as rural and urban development projects. For every dollar appropriated
by Congress, local Councils have leveraged an average of $14 from non-
federal sources.
The Rural Development Councils are an example of how local
governments and the federal government should work together, and I am
pleased to see that this bill recognizes their importance by
establishing this partnership. This is a step in the right direction,
and as much as could be accomplished in the Farm Bill at this time.
However, Congressional Rural Caucus Agricultural Task Force Co-Chairs
Congressman Pickering and Congressman Turner are working to introduce a
more comprehensive proposal in the near future, and I would urge my
colleagues to support their legislation to further this important
initiative.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, despite this Member's very strong
reservations about the fundamental lack of necessary policy reforms in
the overall bill, he rises in strong support of Title III of H.R. 2646,
the Farm Security Act of 2001. Since Nebraska's 1st Congressional
District's economy relies heavily on agriculture-related trade, the
export and humanitarian programs authorized in Title III impact this
Member's district more directly than perhaps any other provisions
passed in this body. Also, this Member would remind his colleagues that
these programs impact many Americans as the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) estimates that for every $1 generated by agriculture
exports, an additional $1.30 is generated through export-related
activities.
Therefore, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairmen
and Ranking Minority Members of the House Agriculture and International
Relations Committee (Mr. Combest, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Hyde, and Mr.
Lantos). In addition, this Member would like to thank the distinguished
gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her unwavering support for
the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program. Furthermore, this Member also especially would
commend the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton), for her dedication to the Farmers for Africa and Carribean
Basin Program which builds on the current Farmer-to-Farmer Program,
previously established by this Member, by linking African-American
volunteers engaged in farming and agribusiness with their counterparts
in Africa and the Carribean Basin to provide technical assistance.
Their efforts are much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, for the United States to remain competitive in the
world agriculture markets it is crucial to support market development
activities which encourage the sale of U.S. commodities and value-added
ag products overseas. Our European, Asian, and South American
competitors have funneled significant government monies into market
development. Indeed, our competitors individually outspend the U.S. at
a rate of at least 4 to 1.
In the competitive arena of ag trade, it is critical to provide U.S.
ag-industry components with appropriately funded market development
tools for effectively fostering new overseas markets, entering existing
overseas markets, and maintaining overseas markets. Title III more than
doubles funding levels for the Market Access Program (MAP) from $90
million to $200 million and increase funding levels for the Foreign
Market Development Program (FMDP) from $28 million to $37 million a
year.
On a related note, this Member is pleased that the current version of
Title III of H.R. 2646 includes language supporting a study on fees for
services provided by the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) rather
authorizing the

[[Page H6187]]

USDA collect such. This Member has previously expressed his concerns
about the collection of fees for commercial services provided overseas
by the FAS. For small and medium businesses attempting to broaden their
operations overseas, assessing fees for FAS services and impressive
expertise could prove to hinder such businesses' expansion.
In addition to authorizing ag trade and export programs, Title III of
H.R. 2646 authorizes what are among our strongest foreign policy
tools--U.S. food aid programs. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, this
Member is pleased to note that he has on several occasions toured Crete
Mills in Crete, Nebraska, a milling facility in his own district which
produces much of the fortified grain and soy products used in food aid
programs. This Member would like to convey to his colleagues that the
company and its employees are enthused about continuing to play a role
in meeting the needs of their hungry neighbors around the world.
Additionally, of course, it has noticeably raised the market prices for
farmers' grain in a wide radius around Crete.
In supporting the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program, this Member hopes that the U.S.
attain its frequently articulated goal of stability in sub-Saharan
Africa, Central America, South America, and Asia. Indeed, following the
horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is increasingly
important that the U.S. make investments in the health and education of
the children in particularly unstable regions. Upon the foundation of a
healthy, educated population, the U.S. can continue to work toward
other foreign policy goals--building democratic institutions,
addressing human rights concerns, developing economic stability, and
countering terrorism.
Finally, as the author of the original Farmer-to-Farmer Program as
earlier noted, this Member is pleased to support the Farmers for Africa
and Carribean Basin Program, an initiative introduced as freestanding
legislation by the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton). The Farmers for Africa and Carribean Basin Program builds
upon the current Farmer-to-Farmer Program, which is reauthorized in
this bill, by linking African-American volunteers engaged in farming
and agribusiness with their counterparts in Africa and the Carribean
Basin to provide technical assistance. This approach has worked in
Asia, South America, and the Newly Independent States of the former
Soviet Union; therefore, the renewed emphasis and extension of this
program to Africa and the Carribean Basin certainly is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman this Member urges his colleagues to strongly support
Title III of H.R. 2646.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman
Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for their commitment to bring about
a complete Farm Bill with all titles. This bill is the fruit of
dedication and commitment that Committee Members have for the people
this House represents. I applaud the Committee's work to increase funds
to titles such as Conservation, Rural Development and Trade, all of
which are extremely important areas for the Nation and people of Puerto
Rico and especially, to our farmers and growers.
I would like to emphasize the importance the Nutrition Title
contained in this bill has for the 430,000 Puerto Rican families that
depend on nutrition assistance to keep their children fed and healthy.
Title IV reauthorizes the Nutritional Assistance Program, better known
in Puerto Rico as PAN for the next ten years, with increases in funding
for each year. The Puerto Rican Nutritional Assistance Program serves
the same purpose in Puerto Rico as the Food Stamps program serves in
the states: to reduce hunger, to improve the health of our children,
and ensure our nation a brighter future. We cannot afford hungry
children in our schoolrooms. Nutrition Assistance is an essential
foundation for building a better future for all of us. Especially in
today's changing world, ensuring that every family has food on their
table, no matter what financial circumstances beset them, is of utmost
importance. I urge all Members of this House to vote in favor of this
bill and especially support the efforts to guarantee a decent meal to
every family in Puerto Rico and in the Nation. I am very thankful that
this Farm Bill assures this for every American.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part A of House Report 107-226, modified by the amendment
printed in part B of that report, is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Farm
Security Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS

Sec. 100. Definitions.

Subtitle A--Fixed Decoupled Payments and Counter-Cyclical Payments

Sec. 101. Payments to eligible producers.
Sec. 102. Establishment of payment yield.
Sec. 103. Establishment of base acres and payment acres for a farm.
Sec. 104. Availability of fixed, decoupled payments.
Sec. 105. Availability of counter-cyclical payments.
Sec. 106. Producer agreement required as condition on provision of
fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments.
Sec. 107. Planting flexibility.
Sec. 108. Relation to remaining payment authority under production
flexibility contracts.
Sec. 109. Payment limitations.
Sec. 110. Period of effectiveness.

Subtitle B--Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

Sec. 121. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for
covered commodities.
Sec. 122. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans.
Sec. 123. Term of loans.
Sec. 124. Repayment of loans.
Sec. 125. Loan deficiency payments.
Sec. 126. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed
acreage.
Sec. 127. Special marketing loan provisions for upland cotton.
Sec. 128. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple cotton.
Sec. 129. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed grains
and seed cotton and other fibers.
Sec. 130. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for
wool and mohair.
Sec. 131. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for
honey.

Subtitle C--Other Commodities

Chapter 1--Dairy

Sec. 141. Milk price support program.
Sec. 142. Repeal of recourse loan program for processors.
Sec. 143. Extension of dairy export incentive and dairy indemnity
programs.
Sec. 144. Fluid milk promotion.
Sec. 145. Dairy product mandatory reporting.
Sec. 146. Funding of dairy promotion and research program.

Chapter 2--Sugar

Sec. 151. Sugar program.
Sec. 152. Reauthorize provisions of Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
regarding sugar.
Sec. 153. Storage facility loans.

Chapter 3--Peanuts

Sec. 161. Definitions.
Sec. 162. Establishment of payment yield, peanut acres, and payment
acres for a farm.
Sec. 163. Availability of fixed, decoupled payments for peanuts.
Sec. 164. Availability of counter-cyclical payments for peanuts.
Sec. 165. Producer agreement required as condition on provision of
fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments.
Sec. 166. Planting flexibility.
Sec. 167. Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for
peanuts.
Sec. 168. Quality improvement.
Sec. 169. Payment limitations.
Sec. 170. Termination of marketing quota programs for peanuts and
compensation to peanut quota holders for loss of quota
asset value.

Subtitle D--Administration

Sec. 181. Administration generally.
Sec. 182. Extension of suspension of permanent price support authority.
Sec. 183. Limitations.
Sec. 184. Adjustments of loans.
Sec. 185. Personal liability of producers for deficiencies.
Sec. 186. Extension of existing administrative authority regarding
loans.
Sec. 187. Assignment of payments.

TITLE II--CONSERVATION

Subtitle A--Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

Sec. 201. General provisions.

Subtitle B--Conservation Reserve Program

Sec. 211. Reauthorization.
Sec. 212. Enrollment.
Sec. 213. Duties of owners and operators.
Sec. 214. Reference to conservation reserve payments.

Subtitle C--Wetlands Reserve Program

Sec. 221. Enrollment.
Sec. 222. Easements and agreements.
Sec. 223. Duties of the Secretary.
Sec. 224. Changes in ownership; agreement modification; termination.

Subtitle D--Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Sec. 231. Purposes.
Sec. 232. Definitions.

[[Page H6188]]

Sec. 233. Establishment and administration.
Sec. 234. Evaluation of offers and payments.
Sec. 235. Environmental Quality Incentives Program plan.
Sec. 236. Duties of the Secretary.
Sec. 237. Limitation on payments.
Sec. 238. Ground and surface water conservation.

Subtitle E--Funding and Administration

Sec. 241. Reauthorization.
Sec. 242. Funding.
Sec. 243. Allocation for livestock production.
Sec. 244. Administration and technical assistance.

Subtitle F--Other Programs

Sec. 251. Private grazing land and conservation assistance.
Sec. 252. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
Sec. 253. Farmland Protection Program.
Sec. 254. Resource Conservation and Development Program.
Sec. 255. Grassland Reserve Program.
Sec. 256. Farmland Stewardship Program.
Sec. 257. Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.

Subtitle G--Repeals

Sec. 261. Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985.
Sec. 262. National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation Act.

TITLE III--TRADE

Sec. 301. Market Access Program.
Sec. 302. Food for Progress.
Sec. 303. Surplus commodities for developing or friendly countries.
Sec. 304. Export Enhancement Program.
Sec. 305. Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.
Sec. 306. Export Credit Guarantee Program.
Sec. 307. Food for Peace (PL 480).
Sec. 308. Emerging markets.
Sec. 309. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
Sec. 310. Technical assistance for specialty crops.
Sec. 311. Farmers to Africa and the Caribbean Basin.
Sec. 312. George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program.
Sec. 313. Study on fee for services.
Sec. 314. National export strategy report.

TITLE IV--NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--Food Stamp Program

Sec. 401. Simplified definition of income.
Sec. 402. Standard deduction.
Sec. 403. Transitional food stamps for families moving from welfare.
Sec. 404. Quality control systems.
Sec. 405. Simplified application and eligibility determination systems.
Sec. 406. Authorization of appropriations.

Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution

Sec. 441. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition
projects.
Sec. 442. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 443. Emergency food assistance.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 461. Hunger fellowship program.
Sec. 462. General effective date.

TITLE V--CREDIT

Sec. 501. Eligibility of limited liability companies for farm ownership
loans, farm operating loans, and emergency loans.
Sec. 502. Suspension of limitation on period for which borrowers are
eligible for guaranteed assistance.
Sec. 503. Administration of Certified Lenders and Preferred Certified
Lenders programs.
Sec. 504. Simplified loan guarantee application available for loans of
greater amounts.
Sec. 505. Elimination of requirement that Secretary require county
committees to certify in writing that certain loan
reviews have been conducted.
Sec. 506. Authority to reduce percentage of loan guaranteed if borrower
income is insufficient to service debt.
Sec. 507. Timing of loan assessments.
Sec. 508. Making and servicing of loans by personnel of State, county,
or area committees.
Sec. 509. Eligibility of employees of State, county, or area committee
for loans and loan guarantees.
Sec. 510. Emergency loans in response to an economic emergency
resulting from quarantines and sharply increasing energy
costs.
Sec. 511. Extension of authority to contract for servicing of farmer
program loans.
Sec. 512. Authorization for loans.
Sec. 513. Reservation of funds for direct operating loans for beginning
farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 514. Extension of interest rate reduction program.
Sec. 515. Increase in duration of loans under down payment loan
program.
Sec. 516. Horse breeder loans.
Sec. 517. Sunset of direct loan programs under the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act.
Sec. 518. Definition of debt forgiveness.
Sec. 519. Loan eligibility for borrowers with prior debt forgiveness.
Sec. 520. Allocation of certain funds for socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 521. Horses considered to be livestock under the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act.

TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 601. Funding for rural local television broadcast signal loan
guarantees.
Sec. 602. Expanded eligibility for value-added agricultural product
market development grants.
Sec. 603. Agriculture innovation center demonstration program.
Sec. 604. Funding of community water assistance grant program.
Sec. 605. Loan guarantees for the financing of the purchase of
renewable energy systems.
Sec. 606. Loans and loan guarantees for renewable energy systems.
Sec. 607. Rural business opportunity grants.
Sec. 608. Grants for water systems for rural and native villages in
Alaska.
Sec. 609. Rural cooperative development grants.
Sec. 610. National reserve account of Rural Development Trust Fund.
Sec. 611. Rural venture capital demonstration program.
Sec. 612. Increase in limit on certain loans for rural development.
Sec. 613. Pilot program for development and implementation of strategic
regional development plans.
Sec. 614. Grants to nonprofit organizations to finance the
construction, refurbishing, and servicing of
individually-owned household water well systems in rural
areas for individuals with low or moderate incomes.
Sec. 615. National Rural Development Partnership.
Sec. 616. Eligibility of rural empowerment zones, rural enterprise
communities, and champion communities for direct and
guaranteed loans for essential community facilities.
Sec. 617. Grants to train farm workers in new technologies and to train
farm workers in specialized skills necessary for higher
value crops.
Sec. 618. Loan guarantees for the purchase of stock in a farmer
cooperative seeking to modernize or expand.
Sec. 619. Intangible assets and subordinated unsecured debt required to
be considered in determining eligibility of farmer-owned
cooperative for business and industry guaranteed loan.
Sec. 620. Ban on limiting eligibility of farmer cooperative for
business and industry loan guarantee based on population
of area in which cooperative is located.
Sec. 621. Rural water and waste facility grants.
Sec. 622. Rural water circuit rider program.
Sec. 623. Rural water grassroots source water protection program.

TITLE VII--RESEARCH AND RELATED MATTERS

Subtitle A--Extensions

Sec. 700. Market expansion research.
Sec. 701. National Rural Information Center Clearinghouse.
Sec. 702. Grants and fellowships for food and agricultural sciences
education.
Sec. 703. Policy research centers.
Sec. 704. Human nutrition intervention and health promotion research
program.
Sec. 705. Pilot research program to combine medical and agricultural
research.
Sec. 706. Nutrition education program.
Sec. 707. Continuing animal health and disease research programs.
Sec. 708. Appropriations for research on national or regional problems.
Sec. 709. Grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities
at 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee
University.
Sec. 710. National research and training centennial centers at 1890
land-grant institutions.
Sec. 711. Hispanic-serving institutions.
Sec. 712. Competitive grants for international agricultural science and
education programs.
Sec. 713. University research.
Sec. 714. Extension service.
Sec. 715. Supplemental and alternative crops.
Sec. 716. Aquaculture research facilities.
Sec. 717. Rangeland research.
Sec. 718. National genetics resources program.
Sec. 719. High-priority research and extension initiatives.
Sec. 720. Nutrient management research and extension initiative.
Sec. 721. Agricultural telecommunications program.
Sec. 722. Alternative agricultural research and commercialization
revolving fund.
Sec. 723. Assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities.
Sec. 724. Partnerships for high-value agricultural product quality
research.
Sec. 725. Biobased products.
Sec. 726. Integrated research, education, and extension competitive
grants program.

[[Page H6189]]

Sec. 727. Institutional capacity building grants.
Sec. 728. 1994 Institution research grants.
Sec. 729. Endowment for 1994 Institutions.
Sec. 730. Precision agriculture.
Sec. 731. Thomas Jefferson initiative for crop diversification.
Sec. 732. Support for research regarding diseases of wheat, triticale,
and barley caused by Fusarium Graminearum or by Tilletia
Indica.
Sec. 733. Office of Pest Management Policy.
Sec. 734. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board.
Sec. 735. Grants for research on production and marketing of alcohols
and industrial hydrocarbons from agricultural commodities
and forest products.
Sec. 736. Biomass research and development.
Sec. 737. Agricultural experiment stations research facilities.
Sec. 738. Competitive, special, and facilities research grants national
research initiative.
Sec. 739. Federal agricultural research facilities authorization of
appropriations.
Sec. 740. Cotton classification services.
Sec. 740A. Critical agricultural materials research.

Subtitle B--Modifications

Sec. 741. Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994.
Sec. 742. National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977.
Sec. 743. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998.
Sec. 744. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Sec. 745. National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977.
Sec. 746. Biomass research and development.
Sec. 747. Biotechnology risk assessment research.
Sec. 748. Competitive, special, and facilities research grants.
Sec. 749. Matching funds requirement for research and extension
activities of 1890 institutions.
Sec. 749A. Matching funds requirement for research and extension
activities for the United States territories.
Sec. 750. Initiative for future agriculture and food systems.
Sec. 751. Carbon cycle research.
Sec. 752. Definition of food and agricultural sciences.
Sec. 753. Federal extension service.
Sec. 754. Policy research centers.

Subtitle C--Related Matters

Sec. 761. Resident instruction at land-grant colleges in United States
territories.
Sec. 762. Declaration of extraordinary emergency and resulting
authorities.

Subtitle D--Repeal of Certain Activities and Authorities

Sec. 771. Food Safety Research Information Office and National
Conference.
Sec. 772. Reimbursement of expenses under Sheep Promotion, Research,
and Information Act of 1994.
Sec. 773. National genetic resources program.
Sec. 774. National Advisory Board on Agricultural Weather.
Sec. 775. Agricultural information exchange with Ireland.
Sec. 776. Pesticide resistance study.
Sec. 777. Expansion of education study.
Sec. 778. Support for advisory board.
Sec. 779. Task force on 10-year strategic plan for agricultural
research facilities.

Subtitle E--Agriculture Facility Protection

Sec. 790. Additional protections for animal or agricultural
enterprises, research facilities, and other entities.

TITLE VIII--FORESTRY INITIATIVES

Sec. 801. Repeal of forestry incentives program and Stewardship
Incentive Program.
Sec. 802. Establishment of Forest Land Enhancement Program.
Sec. 803. Renewable resources extension activities.
Sec. 804. Enhanced community fire protection.
Sec. 805. International forestry program.
Sec. 806. Long-term forest stewardship contracts for hazardous fuels
removal and implementation of National Fire Plan.
Sec. 807. McIntire-Stennis cooperative forestry research program.

TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Tree Assistance Program

Sec. 901. Eligibility.
Sec. 902. Assistance.
Sec. 903. Limitation on assistance.
Sec. 904. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Other Matters

Sec. 921. Hazardous fuel reduction grants to prevent wildfire disasters
and transform hazardous fuels to electric energy, useful
heat, or transportation fuels.
Sec. 922. Bioenergy program.
Sec. 923. Availability of section 32 funds.
Sec. 924. Seniors farmers' market nutrition program.
Sec. 925. Department of Agriculture authorities regarding caneberries.
Sec. 926. National Appeals Division.
Sec. 927. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers.
Sec. 928. Equal treatment of potatoes and sweet potatoes.
Sec. 929. Reference to sea grass and sea oats as crops covered by
noninsured crop disaster assistance program.
Sec. 930. Operation of Graduate School of Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 931. Assistance for livestock producers.

TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS

SEC. 100. DEFINITIONS.

In this title (other than chapter 3 of subtitle C):
(1) Agricultural act of 1949.--The term ``Agricultural Act
of 1949'' means the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421
et seq.), as in effect prior to the suspensions under section
171 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7301).
(2) Base acres.--The term ``base acres'', with respect to a
covered commodity on a farm, means the number of acres
established under section 103 with respect to the commodity
upon the election made by the producers on the farm under
subsection (a) of such section.
(3) Counter-cyclical payment.--The term ``counter-cyclical
payment'' means a payment made to producers under section
105.
(4) Covered commodity.--The term ``covered commodity''
means wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, rice, soybeans, and other oilseeds.
(5) Effective price.--The term ``effective price'', with
respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the
price calculated by the Secretary under section 105 to
determine whether counter-cyclical payments are required to
be made for that crop year.
(6) Eligible producer.--The term ``eligible producer''
means a producer described in section 101(a).
(7) Fixed, decoupled payment.--The term ``fixed, decoupled
payment'' means a payment made to producers under section
104.
(8) Other oilseed.--The term ``other oilseed'' means a crop
of sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed,
mustard seed, or, if designated by the Secretary, another
oilseed.
(9) Payment acres.--The term ``payment acres'' means 85
percent of the base acres of a covered commodity on a farm,
as established under section 103, upon which fixed, decoupled
payments and counter-cyclical payments are to be made.
(10) Payment yield.--The term ``payment yield'' means the
yield established under section 102 for a farm for a covered
commodity.
(11) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means an owner,
operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper who shares in the
risk of producing a crop and who is entitled to share in the
crop available for marketing from the farm, or would have
shared had the crop been produced. In determining whether a
grower of hybrid seed is a producer, the Secretary shall not
take into consideration the existence of a hybrid seed
contract and shall ensure that program requirements do not
adversely affect the ability of the grower to receive a
payment under this title.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(13) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(14) Target price.--The term ``target price'' means the
price per bushel (or other appropriate unit in the case of
upland cotton, rice, and other oilseeds) of a covered
commodity used to determine the payment rate for counter-
cyclical payments.
(15) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

Subtitle A--Fixed Decoupled Payments and Counter-Cyclical Payments

SEC. 101. PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE PRODUCERS.

(a) Payments Required.--Beginning with the 2002 crop of
covered commodities, the Secretary shall make fixed decoupled
payments and counter-cyclical payments under this subtitle--
(1) to producers on a farm that were parties to a
production flexibility contract under section 111 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7211) for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) to other producers on farms in the United States as
described in section 103(a).
(b) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out this title,
the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect
the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.
(c) Sharing of Payments.--The Secretary shall provide for
the sharing of fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments among the eligible producers on a farm on a fair and
equitable basis.

SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT OF PAYMENT YIELD.

(a) Establishment and Purpose.--For the purpose of making
fixed decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments under
this subtitle, the Secretary shall provide for the
establishment of a payment yield for each farm for each
covered commodity in accordance with this section.
(b) Use of Farm Program Payment Yield.--Except as otherwise
provided in this

[[Page H6190]]

section, the payment yield for each of the 2002 through 2011
crops of a covered commodity for a farm shall be the farm
program payment yield in effect for the 2002 crop of the
covered commodity under section 505 of the Agricultural Act
of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1465).
(c) Farms Without Farm Program Payment Yield.--In the case
of a farm for which a farm program payment yield is
unavailable for a covered commodity (other than soybeans or
other oilseeds), the Secretary shall establish an appropriate
payment yield for the covered commodity on the farm taking in
consideration the farm program payment yields applicable to
the commodity under subsection (b) for similar farms in the
area.
(d) Payment Yields for Oilseeds.--
(1) Determination of average yield.--In the case of
soybeans and each other oilseed, the Secretary shall
determine the average yield for the oilseed on a farm for the
1998 through 2001 crop years, excluding any crop year in
which the acreage planted to the oilseed was zero. If, for
any of these four crop years in which the oilseed was
planted, the farm would have satisfied the eligibility
criteria established to carry out section 1102 of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105-277; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note), the Secretary shall assign a
yield for that year equal to 65 percent of the county yield.
(2) Adjustment for payment yield.--The payment yield for a
farm for an oilseed shall be equal to the product of the
following:
(A) The average yield for the oilseed determined under
paragraph (1).
(B) The ratio resulting from dividing the national average
yield for the oilseed for the 1981 through 1985 crops by the
national average yield for the oilseed for the 1998 through
2001 crops.

SEC. 103. ESTABLISHMENT OF BASE ACRES AND PAYMENT ACRES FOR A
FARM.

(a) Election by Producers of Base Acre Calculation
Method.--For the purpose of making fixed decoupled payments
and counter-cyclical payments with respect to a farm, the
Secretary shall give producers on the farm an opportunity to
elect one of the following as the method by which the base
acres of all covered commodities on the farm are to be
determined:
(1) The four-year average of acreage actually planted on
the farm to a covered commodity for harvest, grazing, haying,
silage, or other similar purposes during crop years 1998,
1999, 2000, and 2001 and any acreage on the farm that the
producers were prevented from planting during such crop years
to the covered commodity because of drought, flood, or other
natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of
the producer, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) The contract acreage (as defined in section 102 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7202)) used by the Secretary to calculate the fiscal
year 2002 payment that, subject to section 109, would be made
under section 114 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 7214) for the covered
commodity on the farm.
(b) Single Election; Time for Election.--The opportunity to
make the election described in subsection (a) shall be
available to producers on a farm only once. The producers
shall notify the Secretary of the election made by the
producers under such subsection not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Effect of Failure To Make Election.--If the producers
on a farm fail to make the election under subsection (a), or
fail to timely notify the Secretary of the selected option as
required by subsection (b), the producers shall be deemed to
have made the election described in subsection (a)(2) to
determine base acres for all covered commodities on the farm.
(d) Application of Election to All Covered Commodities.--
The election made under subsection (a) or deemed to be made
under subsection (c) with respect to a farm shall apply to
all of the covered commodities on the farm. Producers may not
make the election described in subsection (a)(1) for one
covered commodity and the election described in subsection
(a)(2) for other covered commodities on the farm.
(e) Treatment of Conservation Reserve Contract Acreage.--
(1) In general.--In the case of producers on a farm that
make the election described in subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall provide for an adjustment in the base acres
for the farm whenever either of the following circumstances
occur:
(A) A conservation reserve contract entered into under
section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3831) with respect to the farm expires or is voluntarily
terminated.
(B) Cropland is released from coverage under a conservation
reserve contract by the Secretary.
(2) Special payment rules.--For the fiscal year and crop
year in which a base acre adjustment under paragraph (1) is
first made, the producers on the farm shall elect to receive
either fixed decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments
with respect to the acreage added to the farm under this
subsection or a prorated payment under the conservation
reserve contract, but not both.
(f) Payment Acres.--The payment acres for a covered
commodity on a farm shall be equal to 85 percent of the base
acres for the commodity.
(g) Prevention of Excess Base Acres.--
(1) Required reduction.--If the sum of the base acres for a
farm, together with the acreage described in paragraph (2),
exceeds the actual cropland acreage of the farm, the
Secretary shall reduce the quantity of base acres for one or
more covered commodities for the farm or peanut acres for the
farm as necessary so that the sum of the base acres and
acreage described in paragraph (2) does not exceed the actual
cropland acreage of the farm. The Secretary shall give the
producers on the farm the opportunity to select the base
acres or peanut acres against which the reduction will be
made.
(2) Other acreage.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any peanut acres for the farm under chapter 3 of
subtitle C.
(B) Any acreage on the farm enrolled in the conservation
reserve program or wetlands reserve program under chapter 1
of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.).
(C) Any other acreage on the farm enrolled in a
conservation program for which payments are made in exchange
for not producing an agricultural commodity on the acreage.
(3) Exception for double-cropped acreage.--In applying
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make an exception in the
case of double cropping, as determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 104. AVAILABILITY OF FIXED, DECOUPLED PAYMENTS.

(a) Payment Required.--For each of the 2002 through 2011
crop years of each covered commodity, the Secretary shall
make fixed, decoupled payments to eligible producers.
(b) Payment Rate.--The payment rates used to make fixed,
decoupled payments with respect to covered commodities for a
crop year are as follows:
(1) Wheat, $0.53 per bushel.
(2) Corn, $0.30 per bushel.
(3) Grain sorghum, $0.36 per bushel.
(4) Barley, $0.25 per bushel.
(5) Oats, $0.025 per bushel.
(6) Upland cotton, $0.0667 per pound.
(7) Rice, $2.35 per hundredweight.
(8) Soybeans, $0.42 per bushel.
(9) Other oilseeds, $0.0074 per pound.
(c) Payment Amount.--The amount of the fixed, decoupled
payment to be paid to the eligible producers on a farm for a
covered commodity for a crop year shall be equal to the
product of the following:
(1) The payment rate specified in subsection (b).
(2) The payment acres of the covered commodity on the farm.
(3) The payment yield for the covered commodity for the
farm.
(d) Time for Payment.--
(1) General rule.--Fixed, decoupled payments shall be paid
not later than September 30 of each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011. In the case of the 2002 crop, payments may
begin to be made on or after December 1, 2001.
(2) Advance payments.--At the option of an eligible
producer, 50 percent of the fixed, decoupled payment for a
fiscal year shall be paid on a date selected by the producer.
The selected date shall be on or after December 1 of that
fiscal year, and the producer may change the selected date
for a subsequent fiscal year by providing advance notice to
the Secretary.
(3) Repayment of advance payments.--If a producer that
receives an advance fixed, decoupled payment for a fiscal
year ceases to be an eligible producer before the date the
fixed, decoupled payment would otherwise have been made by
the Secretary under paragraph (1), the producer shall be
responsible for repaying the Secretary the full amount of the
advance payment.

SEC. 105. AVAILABILITY OF COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

(a) Payment Required.--The Secretary shall make counter-
cyclical payments with respect to a covered commodity
whenever the Secretary determines that the effective price
for the commodity is less than the target price for the
commodity.
(b) Effective Price.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
effective price for a covered commodity is equal to the sum
of the following:
(1) The higher of the following:
(A) The national average market price received by producers
during the 12-month marketing year for the commodity, as
determined by the Secretary.
(B) The national average loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan for the covered commodity in effect for the
same period under subtitle B.
(2) The payment rate in effect for the covered commodity
under section 104 for the purpose of making fixed, decoupled
payments with respect to the commodity.
(c) Target Price.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
target prices for covered commodities are as follows:
(1) Wheat, $4.04 per bushel.
(2) Corn, $2.78 per bushel.
(3) Grain sorghum, $2.64 per bushel.
(4) Barley, $2.39 per bushel.
(5) Oats, $1.47 per bushel.
(6) Upland cotton, $0.736 per pound.
(7) Rice, $10.82 per hundredweight.
(8) Soybeans, $5.86 per bushel.
(9) Other oilseeds, $0.1036 per pound.
(d) Payment Rate.--The payment rate used to make counter-
cyclical payments with respect to a covered commodity for a
crop year shall be equal to the difference between--
(1) the target price for the commodity; and
(2) the effective price determined under subsection (b) for
the commodity.

[[Page H6191]]

(e) Payment Amount.--The amount of the counter-cyclical
payment to be paid to the eligible producers on a farm for a
covered commodity for a crop year shall be equal to the
product of the following:
(1) The payment rate specified in subsection (d).
(2) The payment acres of the covered commodity on the farm.
(3) The payment yield for the covered commodity for the
farm.
(f) Time for Payments.--
(1) General rule.--The Secretary shall make counter-
cyclical payments under this section for a crop of a covered
commodity as soon as possible after determining under
subsection (a) that such payments are required for that crop
year.
(2) Partial payment.--The Secretary may permit, and, if so
permitted, an eligible producer may elect to receive, up to
40 percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment, as
determined by the Secretary, to be made under this section
for a crop of a covered commodity upon completion of the
first six months of the marketing year for that crop. The
producer shall repay to the Secretary the amount, if any, by
which the partial payment exceeds the actual counter-cyclical
payment to be made for that marketing year.
(g) Special Rule for Currently Undesignated Oilseed.--If
the Secretary uses the authority under section 100(8) to
designate another oilseed as an oilseed for which counter-
cyclical payments may be made, the Secretary may modify the
target price specified in subsection (c)(9) that would
otherwise apply to that oilseed as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(h) Special Rule for Barley Used Only for Feed Purposes.--
For purposes of calculating the effective price for barley
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall use the loan rate
in effect for barley under section 122(b)(3), except, in the
case of producers who received the higher loan rate provided
under such section for barley used only for feed purposes,
the Secretary shall use that higher loan rate.

SEC. 106. PRODUCER AGREEMENT REQUIRED AS CONDITION ON
PROVISION OF FIXED, DECOUPLED PAYMENTS AND
COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

(a) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--
(1) Requirements.--Before the producers on a farm may
receive fixed, decoupled payments or counter-cyclical
payments with respect to the farm, the producers shall agree,
in exchange for the payments--
(A) to comply with applicable conservation requirements
under subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.);
(B) to comply with applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.);
(C) to comply with the planting flexibility requirements of
section 107; and
(D) to use the land on the farm, in an amount equal to the
base acres, for an agricultural or conserving use, and not
for a nonagricultural commercial or industrial use, as
determined by the Secretary.
(2) Compliance.--The Secretary may issue such rules as the
Secretary considers necessary to ensure producer compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (1).
(b) Effect of Foreclosure.--A producer may not be required
to make repayments to the Secretary of fixed, decoupled
payments and counter-cyclical payments if the farm has been
foreclosed on and the Secretary determines that forgiving the
repayments is appropriate to provide fair and equitable
treatment. This subsection shall not void the
responsibilities of the producer under subsection (a) if the
producer continues or resumes operation, or control, of the
farm. On the resumption of operation or control over the farm
by the producer, the requirements of subsection (a) in effect
on the date of the foreclosure shall apply.
(c) Transfer or Change of Interest in Farm.--
(1) Termination.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), a
transfer of (or change in) the interest of a producer in base
acres for which fixed, decoupled payments or counter-cyclical
payments are made shall result in the termination of the
payments with respect to the base acres, unless the
transferee or owner of the acreage agrees to assume all
obligations under subsection (a). The termination shall be
effective on the date of the transfer or change.
(2) Transfer of payment base.--There is no restriction on
the transfer of a farm's base acres or payment yield as part
of a change in the producers on the farm.
(3) Modification.--At the request of the transferee or
owner, the Secretary may modify the requirements of
subsection (a) if the modifications are consistent with the
objectives of such subsection, as determined by the
Secretary.
(4) Exception.--If a producer entitled to a fixed,
decoupled payment or counter-cyclical payment dies, becomes
incompetent, or is otherwise unable to receive the payment,
the Secretary shall make the payment, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(d) Acreage Reports.--
(1) In general.--As a condition on the receipt of any
benefits under this subtitle or subtitle B, the Secretary
shall require producers to submit to the Secretary acreage
reports.
(2) Conforming Amendment.--Section 15 of the Agricultural
Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j) is amended by striking
subsection (d).
(e) Review.--A determination of the Secretary under this
section shall be considered to be an adverse decision for
purposes of the availability of administrative review of the
determination.

SEC. 107. PLANTING FLEXIBILITY.

(a) Permitted Crops.--Subject to subsection (b), any
commodity or crop may be planted on base acres on a farm.
(b) Limitations and Exceptions Regarding Certain
Commodities.--
(1) Limitations.--The planting of the following
agricultural commodities shall be prohibited on base acres:
(A) Fruits.
(B) Vegetables (other than lentils, mung beans, and dry
peas).
(C) Wild rice.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the planting
of an agricultural commodity specified in such paragraph--
(A) in any region in which there is a history of double-
cropping of covered commodities with agricultural commodities
specified in paragraph (1), as determined by the Secretary,
in which case the double-cropping shall be permitted;
(B) on a farm that the Secretary determines has a history
of planting agricultural commodities specified in paragraph
(1) on base acres, except that fixed, decoupled payments and
counter-cyclical payments shall be reduced by an acre for
each acre planted to such an agricultural commodity; or
(C) by a producer who the Secretary determines has an
established planting history of a specific agricultural
commodity specified in paragraph (1), except that--
(i) the quantity planted may not exceed the producer's
average annual planting history of such agricultural
commodity in the 1991 through 1995 crop years (excluding any
crop year in which no plantings were made), as determined by
the Secretary; and
(ii) fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments shall be reduced by an acre for each acre planted to
such agricultural commodity.

SEC. 108. RELATION TO REMAINING PAYMENT AUTHORITY UNDER
PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS.

(a) Termination of Superseded Payment Authority.--
Notwithstanding section 113(a)(7) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7213(a)(7)) or
any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not make
payments for fiscal year 2002 after the date of the enactment
of this Act under production flexibility contracts entered
into under section 111 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 7211).
(b) Contract Payments Made Before Enactment.--If, on or
before the date of the enactment of this Act, a producer
receives all or any portion of the payment authorized for
fiscal year 2002 under a production flexibility contract, the
Secretary shall reduce the amount of the fixed, decoupled
payment otherwise due the producer for that same fiscal year
by the amount of the fiscal year 2002 payment previously
received by the producer.

SEC. 109. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

Sections 1001 through 1001C of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 through 1308-3) shall apply to fixed,
decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments.

SEC. 110. PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS.

This subtitle shall be effective beginning with the 2002
crop year of each covered commodity through the 2011 crop
year.

Subtitle B--Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

SEC. 121. AVAILABILITY OF NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS FOR COVERED COMMODITIES.

(a) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--
(1) Availability.--For each of the 2002 through 2011 crops
of each covered commodity, the Secretary shall make available
to producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
for covered commodities produced on the farm. The loans shall
be made under terms and conditions that are prescribed by the
Secretary and at the loan rate established under section 122
for the covered commodity.
(2) Inclusion of extra long staple cotton.--In this
subtitle, the term ``covered commodity'' includes extra long
staple cotton.
(b) Eligible Production.--Any production of a covered
commodity on a farm shall be eligible for a marketing
assistance loan under subsection (a).
(c) Treatment of Certain Commingled Commodities.--In
carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall make loans to
a producer that is otherwise eligible to obtain a marketing
assistance loan, but for the fact the covered commodity owned
by the producer is commingled with covered commodities of
other producers in facilities unlicensed for the storage of
agricultural commodities by the Secretary or a State
licensing authority, if the producer obtaining the loan
agrees to immediately redeem the loan collateral in
accordance with section 166 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7286).
(d) Compliance With Conservation and Wetlands
Requirements.--As a condition of the receipt of a marketing
assistance loan under subsection (a), the producer shall
comply with applicable conservation requirements under
subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3811 et seq.) and applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of

[[Page H6192]]

the Act (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) during the term of the loan.
(e) Definition of Extra Long Staple Cotton.--In this
subtitle, the term ``extra long staple cotton'' means cotton
that--
(1) is produced from pure strain varieties of the
Barbadense species or any hybrid thereof, or other similar
types of extra long staple cotton, designated by the
Secretary, having characteristics needed for various end uses
for which United States upland cotton is not suitable and
grown in irrigated cotton-growing regions of the United
States designated by the Secretary or other areas designated
by the Secretary as suitable for the production of the
varieties or types; and
(2) is ginned on a roller-type gin or, if authorized by the
Secretary, ginned on another type gin for experimental
purposes.
(f) Termination of Superseded Loan Authority.--
Notwithstanding section 131 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7231),
nonrecourse marketing assistance loans shall not be made for
the 2002 crop of covered commodities under subtitle C of
title I of such Act.

SEC. 122. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS.

(a) Wheat.--
(1) Loan rate.--Subject to paragraph (2), the loan rate for
a marketing assistance loan under section 121 for wheat shall
be--
(A) not less than 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 five 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 in the period; but
(B) not more than $2.58 per bushel.
(2) Stocks to use ratio adjustment.--If the Secretary
estimates for any marketing year that the ratio of ending
stocks of wheat to total use for the marketing year will be--
(A) equal to or greater than 30 percent, the Secretary may
reduce the loan rate for wheat for the corresponding crop by
an amount not to exceed 10 percent in any year;
(B) less than 30 percent but not less than 15 percent, the
Secretary may reduce the loan rate for wheat for the
corresponding crop by an amount not to exceed 5 percent in
any year; or
(C) less than 15 percent, the Secretary may not reduce the
loan rate for wheat for the corresponding crop.
(b) Feed Grains.--
(1) Loan rate for corn and grain sorghum.--Subject to
paragraph (2), the loan rate for a marketing assistance loan
under section 121 for corn and grain sorghum shall be--
(A) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price
received by producers of corn or grain sorghum, respectively,
as determined by the Secretary, during the marketing years
for the immediately preceding five crops of the covered
commodity, excluding the year in which the average price was
the highest and the year in which the average price was the
lowest in the period; but
(B) not more than $1.89 per bushel.
(2) Stocks to use ratio adjustment.--If the Secretary
estimates for any marketing year that the ratio of ending
stocks of corn or grain sorghum to total use for the
marketing year will be--
(A) equal to or greater than 25 percent, the Secretary may
reduce the loan rate for the covered commodity for the
corresponding crop by an amount not to exceed 10 percent in
any year;
(B) less than 25 percent but not less than 12.5 percent,
the Secretary may reduce the loan rate for the covered
commodity for the corresponding crop by an amount not to
exceed 5 percent in any year; or
(C) less than 12.5 percent, the Secretary may not reduce
the loan rate for the covered commodity for the corresponding
crop.
(3) Other feed grains.--The loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan under section 121 for barley and oats shall
be--
(A) established at such level as the Secretary determines
is fair and reasonable in relation to the rate that loans are
made available for corn, taking into consideration the
feeding value of the commodity in relation to corn; but
(B) not more than--
(i) $1.65 per bushel for barley, except not more than $1.70
per bushel for barley used only for feed purposes, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) $1.21 per bushel for oats.
(c) Upland Cotton.--
(1) Loan rate.--Subject to paragraph (2), the loan rate for
a marketing assistance loan under section 121 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 smaller 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 three years of
the five-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 in the period; 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 five 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 such 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 $0.50 per pound
or more than $0.5192 per pound.
(d) Extra Long Staple Cotton.--The loan rate for a
marketing assistance loan under section 121 for extra long
staple cotton shall be--
(1) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price
received by producers of extra long staple cotton, as
determined by the Secretary, during three years of the five-
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 in the period; but
(2) not more than $0.7965 per pound.
(e) Rice.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan
under section 121 for rice shall be $6.50 per hundredweight.
(f) Oilseeds.--
(1) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under section 121 for soybeans shall be--
(A) not less than 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 five 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 in the period; but
(B) not more than $4.92 per bushel.
(2) Other oilseeds.--The loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan under section 121 for other oilseeds shall
be--
(A) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price
received by producers of the other oilseed, as determined by
the Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately
preceding five crops of the other oilseed, excluding the year
in which the average price was the highest and the year in
which the average price was the lowest in the period; but
(B) not more than $0.087 per pound.

SEC. 123. TERM OF LOANS.

(a) Term of Loan.--In the case of each covered commodity
(other than upland cotton or extra long staple cotton), a
marketing assistance loan under section 121 shall have a term
of nine months beginning on the first day of the first month
after the month in which the loan is made.
(b) Special Rule for Cotton.--A marketing assistance loan
for upland cotton or extra long staple cotton shall have a
term of 10 months beginning on the first day of the month in
which the loan is made.
(c) Extensions Prohibited.--The Secretary may not extend
the term of a marketing assistance loan for any covered
commodity.

SEC. 124. REPAYMENT OF LOANS.

(a) Repayment Rates for Wheat, Feed Grains, and Oilseeds.--
The Secretary shall permit a producer to repay a marketing
assistance loan under section 121 for wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, oats, and oilseeds at a rate that is the
lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 122, plus interest (as determined by the Secretary);
or
(2) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity by
the Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing the commodity; and
(D) allow the commodity produced in the United States to be
marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally.
(b) Repayment Rates for Upland Cotton and Rice.--The
Secretary shall permit producers to repay a marketing
assistance loan under section 121 for upland cotton and rice
at a rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 122, plus interest (as determined by the Secretary);
or
(2) the prevailing world market price for the commodity
(adjusted to United States quality and location), as
determined by the Secretary.
(c) Repayment Rates for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--
Repayment of a marketing assistance loan for extra long
staple cotton shall be at the loan rate established for the
commodity under section 122, plus interest (as determined by
the Secretary).
(d) Prevailing World Market Price.--For purposes of this
section and section 127, the Secretary shall prescribe by
regulation--
(1) a formula to determine the prevailing world market
price for each covered commodity, adjusted to United States
quality and location; and
(2) a mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce
periodically the prevailing world market price for each
covered commodity.
(e) Adjustment of Prevailing World Market Price for Upland
Cotton.--
(1) In general.--During the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending July 31, 2012, the
prevailing world market price for upland cotton (adjusted to

[[Page H6193]]

United States quality and location) established under
subsection (d) shall be further adjusted if--
(A) the adjusted prevailing world market price is less than
115 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton established
under section 122, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for
the lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for Middling
(M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe is
greater than the Friday through Thursday average price of the
5 lowest-priced growths of upland cotton, as quoted for
Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern
Europe (referred to in this section as the ``Northern Europe
price'').
(2) Further adjustment.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), the adjusted prevailing world market price for upland
cotton shall be further adjusted on the basis of some or all
of the following data, as available:
(A) The United States share of world exports.
(B) The current level of cotton export sales and cotton
export shipments.
(C) Other data determined by the Secretary to be relevant
in establishing an accurate prevailing world market price for
upland cotton (adjusted to United States quality and
location).
(3) Limitation on further adjustment.--The adjustment under
paragraph (2) may not exceed the difference between--
(A) the Friday through Thursday average price for the
lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for Middling
1\3/32\-inch cotton delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe; and
(B) the Northern Europe price.
(f) Time for Fixing Repayment Rate.--In the case of a
producer that marketed or otherwise lost beneficial interest
in a covered commodity before repaying the marketing
assistance loan made under section 121 with respect to the
commodity, the Secretary shall permit the producer to repay
the loan at the lowest repayment rate that was in effect for
that covered commodity under this section as of the date that
the producer lost beneficial interest, as determined by the
Secretary.

SEC. 125. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

(a) Availability of Loan Deficiency Payments.--Except as
provided in subsection (d), the Secretary may make loan
deficiency payments available to producers who, although
eligible to obtain a marketing assistance loan under section
121 with respect to a covered commodity, agree to forgo
obtaining the loan for the commodity in return for payments
under this section.
(b) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment under this
section shall be computed by multiplying--
(1) the loan payment rate determined under subsection (c)
for the covered commodity; by
(2) the quantity of the covered commodity produced by the
eligible producers, excluding any quantity for which the
producers obtain a loan under section 121.
(c) Loan Payment Rate.--For purposes of this section, the
loan payment rate shall be the amount by which--
(1) the loan rate established under section 122 for the
covered commodity; exceeds
(2) the rate at which a loan for the commodity may be
repaid under section 124.
(d) Exception for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--This section
shall not apply with respect to extra long staple cotton.
(e) Time for Payment.--The Secretary shall make a payment
under this section to a producer with respect to a quantity
of a covered commodity as of the earlier of the following:
(1) The date on which the producer marketed or otherwise
lost beneficial interest in the commodity, as determined by
the Secretary.
(2) The date the producer requests the payment.
(f) Continuation of Special LDP Rule for 2001Crop Year.--
Section 135(a)(2) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``2000 crop year'' and inserting ``2000 and 2001
crop years''.

SEC. 126. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR
GRAZED ACREAGE.

(a) Eligible Producers.--Effective for the 2002 through
2011 crop years, in the case of a producer that would be
eligible for a loan deficiency payment under section 125 for
wheat, barley, or oats, but that elects to use acreage
planted to the wheat, barley, or oats for the grazing of
livestock, the Secretary shall make a payment to the producer
under this section if the producer enters into an agreement
with the Secretary to forgo any other harvesting of the
wheat, barley, or oats on that acreage.
(b) Payment Amount.--The amount of a payment made to a
producer on a farm under this section shall be equal to the
amount determined by multiplying--
(1) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under
section 125(c) in effect, as of the date of the agreement,
for the county in which the farm is located; by
(2) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
(A) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with
respect to which the producer elects to forgo harvesting of
wheat, barley, or oats; and
(B) the payment yield for that covered commodity on the
farm.
(c) Time, Manner, and Availability of Payment.--
(1) Time and manner.--A payment under this section shall be
made at the same time and in the same manner as loan
deficiency payments are made under section 125.
(2) Availability.--The Secretary shall establish an
availability period for the payment authorized by this
section that is consistent with the availability period for
wheat, barley, and oats established by the Secretary for
marketing assistance loans authorized by this subtitle.
(d) Prohibition on Crop Insurance or Noninsured Crop
Assistance.--A 2002 through 2011 crop of wheat, barley, or
oats planted on acreage that a producer elects, in the
agreement required by subsection (a), to use for the grazing
of livestock in lieu of any other harvesting of the crop
shall not be eligible for insurance under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or noninsured crop
assistance under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333).

SEC. 127. SPECIAL MARKETING LOAN PROVISIONS FOR UPLAND
COTTON.

(a) Cotton User Marketing Certificates.--
(1) Issuance.--During the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending July 31, 2012, the
Secretary shall issue marketing certificates or cash
payments, at the option of the recipient, to domestic users
and exporters for documented purchases by domestic users and
sales for export by exporters made in the week following a
consecutive four-week period in which--
(A) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for
the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for
Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern
Europe exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25
cents per pound; and
(B) the prevailing world market price for upland cotton
(adjusted to United States quality and location) does not
exceed 134 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton
established under section 122.
(2) Value of certificates or payments.--The value of the
marketing certificates or cash payments shall be based on the
amount of the difference (reduced by 1.25 cents per pound) in
the prices during the fourth week of the consecutive four-
week period multiplied by the quantity of upland cotton
included in the documented sales.
(3) Administration of marketing certificates.--
(A) Redemption, marketing, or exchange.--The Secretary
shall establish procedures for redeeming marketing
certificates for cash or marketing or exchange of the
certificates for agricultural commodities owned by the
Commodity Credit Corporation or pledged to the Commodity
Credit Corporation as collateral for a loan in such manner,
and at such price levels, as the Secretary determines will
best effectuate the purposes of cotton user marketing
certificates, including enhancing the competitiveness and
marketability of United States cotton. Any price restrictions
that would otherwise apply to the disposition of agricultural
commodities by the Commodity Credit Corporation shall not
apply to the redemption of certificates under this
subsection.
(B) Designation of commodities and products.--To the extent
practicable, the Secretary shall permit owners of
certificates to designate the commodities and products,
including storage sites, the owners would prefer to receive
in exchange for certificates
(C) Transfers.--Marketing certificates issued to domestic
users and exporters of upland cotton may be transferred to
other persons in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary.
(b) Special Import Quota.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall carry out an import
quota program during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending July 31, 2012, as provided
in this subsection.
(B) Program requirements.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C), whenever the Secretary determines and
announces that for any consecutive four-week period, the
Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the
lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling
(M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe,
adjusted for the value of any certificate issued under
subsection (a), exceeds the Northern Europe price by more
than 1.25 cents per pound, there shall immediately be in
effect a special import quota.
(C) Tight domestic supply.--During any month for which the
Secretary estimates the season-ending United States upland
cotton stocks-to-use ratio, as determined under subparagraph
(D), to be below 16 percent, the Secretary, in making the
determination under subparagraph (B), shall not adjust the
Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the
lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling
(M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe,
for the value of any certificates issued under subsection
(a).
(D) Season-ending united states stocks-to-use ratio.--For
the purposes of making estimates under subparagraph (C), the
Secretary shall, on a monthly basis, estimate and report the
season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use
ratio, excluding projected raw cotton imports but including
the quantity of raw cotton that has been imported into the
United States during the marketing year.
(2) Quantity.--The quota shall be equal to one week's
consumption of upland cotton by

[[Page H6194]]

domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the
most recent three months for which data are available.
(3) Application.--The quota shall apply to upland cotton
purchased not later than 90 days after the date of the
Secretary's announcement under paragraph (1) and entered into
the United States not later than 180 days after the date.
(4) Overlap.--A special quota period may be established
that overlaps any existing quota period if required by
paragraph (1), except that a special quota period may not be
established under this subsection if a quota period has been
established under subsection (c).
(5) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a
special import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota
quantity for purposes of--
(A) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
(B) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203);
(C) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(d)); and
(D) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule.
(6) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``special
import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not
subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
(7) Limitation.--The quantity of cotton entered into the
United States during any marketing year under the special
import quota established under this subsection may not exceed
the equivalent of five week's consumption of upland cotton by
domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the
three months immediately preceding the first special import
quota established in any marketing year.
(c) Limited Global Import Quota for Upland Cotton.--
(1) In general.--The President shall carry out an import
quota program that provides that whenever the Secretary
determines and announces that the average price of the base
quality of upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, in
the designated spot markets for a month exceeded 130 percent
of the average price of such quality of cotton in the markets
for the preceding 36 months, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there shall immediately be in effect a
limited global import quota subject to the following
conditions:
(A) Quantity.--The quantity of the quota shall be equal to
21 days of domestic mill consumption of upland cotton at the
seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent three
months for which data are available.
(B) Quantity if prior quota.--If a quota has been
established under this subsection during the preceding 12
months, the quantity of the quota next established under this
subsection shall be the smaller of 21 days of domestic mill
consumption calculated under subparagraph (A) or the quantity
required to increase the supply to 130 percent of the demand.
(C) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a
limited global import quota shall be considered to be an in-
quota quantity for purposes of--
(i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
(ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203);
(iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(d)); and
(iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule.
(D) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(i) Supply.--The term ``supply'' means, using the latest
official data of the Bureau of the Census, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of the Treasury--

(I) the carry-over of upland cotton at the beginning of the
marketing year (adjusted to 480-pound bales) in which the
quota is established;
(II) production of the current crop; and
(III) imports to the latest date available during the
marketing year.

(ii) Demand.--The term ``demand'' means--

(I) the average seasonally adjusted annual rate of domestic
mill consumption during the most recent three months for
which data are available; and
(II) the larger of--

(aa) average exports of upland cotton during the preceding
six marketing years; or
(bb) cumulative exports of upland cotton plus outstanding
export sales for the marketing year in which the quota is
established.
(iii) Limited global import quota.--The term ``limited
global import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not
subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
(E) Quota entry period.--When a quota is established under
this subsection, cotton may be entered under the quota during
the 90-day period beginning on the date the quota is
established by the Secretary.
(2) No overlap.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a quota
period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota
period or a special quota period established under subsection
(b).

SEC. 128. SPECIAL COMPETITIVE PROVISIONS FOR EXTRA LONG
STAPLE COTTON.

(a) Competitiveness Program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on July 31, 2012, the
Secretary shall carry out a program to maintain and expand
the domestic use of extra long staple cotton produced in the
United States, to increase exports of extra long staple
cotton produced in the United States, and to ensure that
extra long staple cotton produced in the United States
remains competitive in world markets.
(b) Payments Under Program; Trigger.--Under the program,
the Secretary shall make payments available under this
section whenever--
(1) for a consecutive four-week period, the world market
price for the lowest priced competing growth of extra long
staple cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location
and for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such
cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is below the
prevailing United States price for a competing growth of
extra long staple cotton; and
(2) the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple
cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and
for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such
cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is less than 134
percent of the loan rate for extra long staple cotton.
(c) Eligible Recipients.--The Secretary shall make payments
available under this section to domestic users of extra long
staple cotton produced in the United States and exporters of
extra long staple cotton produced in the United States who
enter into an agreement with the Commodity Credit Corporation
to participate in the program under this section.
(d) Payment Amount.--Payments under this section shall be
based on the amount of the difference in the prices referred
to in subsection (b)(1) during the fourth week of the
consecutive four-week period multiplied by the amount of
documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export
by exporters made in the week following such a consecutive
four-week period.
(e) Form of Payment.--Payments under this section shall be
made through the issuance of cash or marketing certificates,
at the option of eligible recipients of the payments.

SEC. 129. AVAILABILITY OF RECOURSE LOANS FOR HIGH MOISTURE
FEED GRAINS AND SEED COTTON AND OTHER FIBERS.

(a) High Moisture Feed Grains.--
(1) Recourse loans available.--For each of the 2002 through
2011 crops of corn and grain sorghum, the Secretary shall
make available recourse loans, as determined by the
Secretary, to producers on a farm who--
(A) normally harvest all or a portion of their crop of corn
or grain sorghum in a high moisture state;
(B) present--
(i) certified scale tickets from an inspected, certified
commercial scale, including a licensed warehouse, feedlot,
feed mill, distillery, or other similar entity approved by
the Secretary, pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary; or
(ii) field or other physical measurements of the standing
or stored crop in regions of the United States, as determined
by the Secretary, that do not have certified commercial
scales from which certified scale tickets may be obtained
within reasonable proximity of harvest operation;
(C) certify that they were the owners of the feed grain at
the time of delivery to, and that the quantity to be placed
under loan under this subsection was in fact harvested on the
farm and delivered to, a feedlot, feed mill, or commercial or
on-farm high-moisture storage facility, or to a facility
maintained by the users of corn and grain sorghum in a high
moisture state; and
(D) comply with deadlines established by the Secretary for
harvesting the corn or grain sorghum and submit applications
for loans under this subsection within deadlines established
by the Secretary.
(2) Eligibility of acquired feed grains.--A loan under this
subsection shall be made on a quantity of corn or grain
sorghum of the same crop acquired by the producer equivalent
to a quantity determined by multiplying--
(A) the acreage of the corn or grain sorghum in a high
moisture state harvested on the producer's farm; by
(B) the lower of the farm program payment yield or the
actual yield on a field, as determined by the Secretary, that
is similar to the field from which the corn or grain sorghum
was obtained.
(3) High moisture state defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``high moisture state'' means corn or grain sorghum
having a moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit
Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans made by
the Secretary under section 121.
(b) Recourse Loans Available for Seed Cotton.--For each of
the 2002 through 2011 crops of upland cotton and extra long
staple cotton, the Secretary shall make available recourse
seed cotton loans, as determined by the Secretary, on any
production.
(c) Repayment Rates.--Repayment of a recourse loan made
under this section shall be at the loan rate established for
the commodity by the Secretary, plus interest (as determined
by the Secretary).
(d) Termination of Superseded Loan Authority.--
Notwithstanding section 137 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7237), recourse
loans shall not be made for the 2002 crop of corn, grain
sorghum, and seed cotton under such section.

SEC. 130. AVAILABILITY OF NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS FOR WOOL AND MOHAIR.

(a) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--During the 2002 through
2011 marketing years for wool and mohair, the Secretary shall
make

[[Page H6195]]

available to producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for wool and mohair produced on the farm
during that marketing year.
(b) Loan Rate.--The loan rate for a loan under subsection
(a) shall be not more than--
(1) $1.00 per pound for graded wool;
(2) $0.40 per pound for nongraded wool; and
(3) $4.20 per pound for mohair.
(c) Term of Loan.--A loan under subsection (a) shall have a
term of one year beginning on the first day of the first
month after the month in which the loan is made.
(d) Repayment Rates.--The Secretary shall permit a producer
to repay a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a) for
wool or mohair at a rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
subsection (b), plus interest (as determined by the
Secretary); or
(2) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity by
the Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing the commodity; and
(D) allow the commodity produced in the United States to be
marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally.
(e) Loan Deficiency Payments.--
(1) Availability.--The Secretary may make loan deficiency
payments available to producers that, although eligible to
obtain a marketing assistance loan under this section, agree
to forgo obtaining the loan in return for payments under this
section.
(2) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment under this
subsection shall be computed by multiplying--
(A) the loan payment rate in effect under paragraph (3) for
the commodity; by
(B) the quantity of the commodity produced by the eligible
producers, excluding any quantity for which the producers
obtain a loan under this subsection.
(3) Loan payment rate.--For purposes of this subsection,
the loan payment rate for wool or mohair shall be the amount
by which--
(A) the loan rate in effect for the commodity under
subsection (b); exceeds
(B) the rate at which a loan for the commodity may be
repaid under subsection (d).
(4) Time for payment.--The Secretary shall make a payment
under this subsection to a producer with respect to a
quantity of a wool or mohair as of the earlier of the
following:
(A) The date on which the producer marketed or otherwise
lost beneficial interest in the wool or mohair, as determined
by the Secretary.
(B) The date the producer requests the payment.
(f) Limitations.--The marketing assistance loan gains and
loan deficiency payments that a person may receive for wool
and mohair under this section shall be subject to a separate
payment limitation, but in the same dollar amount, as the
payment limitation that applies to marketing assistance loans
and loan deficiency payments received by producers of other
agricultural commodities in the same marketing year.

SEC. 131. AVAILABILITY OF NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS FOR HONEY.

(a) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--During the 2002 through
2011 crop years for honey, the Secretary shall make available
to producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
for honey produced on the farm during that crop year.
(b) Loan Rate.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan for honey under subsection (a) shall be equal to $0.60
cents per pound.
(c) Term of Loan.--A marketing assistance loan under
subsection (a) shall have a term of one year beginning on the
first day of the first month after the month in which the
loan is made.
(d) Repayment Rates.--The Secretary shall permit a producer
to repay a marketing assistance loan for honey under
subsection (a) at a rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate for honey, plus interest (as determined
by the Secretary); or
(2) the prevailing domestic market price for honey, as
determined by the Secretary.
(e) Loan Deficiency Payments.--
(1) Availability.--The Secretary may make loan deficiency
payments available to any producer of honey that, although
eligible to obtain a marketing assistance loan under
subsection (a), agrees to forgo obtaining the loan in return
for a payment under this subsection.
(2) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment under this
subsection shall be determined by multiplying--
(A) the loan payment rate determined under paragraph (3);
by
(B) the quantity of honey that the producer is eligible to
place under loan, but for which the producer forgoes
obtaining the loan in return for a payment under this
subsection.
(3) Loan payment rate.--For the purposes of this
subsection, the loan payment rate shall be the amount by
which--
(A) the loan rate established under subsection (b); exceeds
(B) the rate at which a loan may be repaid under subsection
(d).
(4) Time for payment.--The Secretary shall make a payment
under this subsection to a producer with respect to a
quantity of a honey as of the earlier of the following:
(A) The date on which the producer marketed or otherwise
lost beneficial interest in the honey, as determined by the
Secretary.
(B) The date the producer requests the payment.
(f) Limitations.--The marketing assistance loan gains and
loan deficiency payments that a person may receive for a crop
of honey under this section shall be subject to a separate
payment limitation, but in the same dollar amount, as the
payment limitation that applies to marketing assistance loans
and loan deficiency payments received by producers of other
agricultural commodities in the same crop year.
(g) Prevention of Forfeitures.--The Secretary shall carry
out this section in such a manner as to minimize forfeitures
of honey marketing assistance loans.

Subtitle C--Other Commodities

CHAPTER 1--DAIRY

SEC. 141. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

(a) Support Activities.--During the period beginning on
January 1, 2002, and ending on December 31, 2011, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall support the price of milk
produced in the 48 contiguous States through the purchase of
cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk produced from the milk.
(b) Rate.--During the period specified in subsection (a),
the price of milk shall be supported at a rate equal to $9.90
per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
(c) Purchase Prices.--The support purchase prices under
this section for each of the products of milk (butter,
cheese, and nonfat dry milk) announced by the Secretary shall
be the same for all of that product sold by persons offering
to sell the product to the Secretary. The purchase prices
shall be sufficient to enable plants of average efficiency to
pay producers, on average, a price that is not less than the
rate of price support for milk in effect under subsection
(b).
(d) Special Rule for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk Purchase
Prices.--
(1) Allocation of purchase prices.--The Secretary may
allocate the rate of price support between the purchase
prices for nonfat dry milk and butter in a manner that will
result in the lowest level of expenditures by the Commodity
Credit Corporation or achieve such other objectives as the
Secretary considers appropriate. Not later than 10 days after
making or changing an allocation, the Secretary shall notify
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate of the allocation. Section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, shall not apply with respect to the
implementation of this section.
(2) Timing of purchase price adjustments.--The Secretary
may make any such adjustments in the purchase prices for
nonfat dry milk and butter the Secretary considers to be
necessary not more than twice in each calendar year.
(e) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall
carry out the program authorized by this section through the
Commodity Credit Corporation.

SEC. 142. REPEAL OF RECOURSE LOAN PROGRAM FOR PROCESSORS.

Section 142 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7252) is repealed.

SEC. 143. EXTENSION OF DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE AND DAIRY
INDEMNITY PROGRAMS.

(a) Dairy Export Incentive Program.--Section 153(a) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(a)) is amended
by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Dairy Indemnity Program.--Section 3 of Public Law 90-
484 (7 U.S.C. 450l) is amended by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 144. FLUID MILK PROMOTION.

(a) Definition of Fluid Milk Product.--Section 1999C of the
Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402) is amended
by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Fluid milk product.--The term `fluid milk product'
has the meaning given such term--
``(A) in section 1000.15 of title 7, Code of Federal
Regulations, subject to such amendments as may be made from
time to time; or
``(B) in any successor regulation providing a definition of
such term that is promulgated pursuant to the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), reenacted with
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937.''.
(b) Definition of Fluid Milk Processor.--Section 1999C(4)
of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is
amended by striking ``500,000'' and inserting ``3,000,000''.
(c) Elimination of Order Termination Date.--Section 1999O
of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6414) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(a) and (b), respectively.

SEC. 145. DAIRY PRODUCT MANDATORY REPORTING.

Section 273(b)(1)(B) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1637b(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and substantially identical products
designated by the Secretary'' after ``dairy products'' the
first place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``and such substantially identical
products'' after ``dairy products'' the second place it
appears.

[[Page H6196]]

SEC. 146. FUNDING OF DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--Section 111 of the Dairy Production
Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4502) is amended--
(1) in subsection (k), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subsection (l), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) the term `imported dairy product' means any dairy
product that is imported into the United States, including
dairy products imported into the United States in the form
of--
``(1) milk, cream, and fresh and dried dairy products;
``(2) butter and butterfat mixtures;
``(3) cheese; and
``(4) casein and mixtures;
``(n) the term `importer' means a person that imports an
imported dairy product into the United States; and
``(o) the term `Customs' means the United States Customs
Service.''.
(b) Representation of Importers on Board.--Section 113(b)
of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
4504(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``National Dairy Promotion and Research
Board.--'' after ``(b)'';
(2) by designating the first through ninth sentences as
paragraphs (1) through (5) and paragraphs (7) through (10),
respectively, and indenting the paragraphs appropriately;
(3) in paragraph (2) (as so designated), by striking
``Members'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph
(6), the members''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so designated) the
following:
``(6) Importers.--
``(A) Representation.--The Secretary shall appoint not more
than 2 members who represent importers of dairy products and
are subject to assessments under the order, to reflect the
proportion of domestic production and imports supplying the
United States market, which shall be based on the Secretary's
determination of the average volume of domestic production of
dairy products proportionate to the average volume of imports
of dairy products in the United States over the previous
three years.
``(B) Additional members; nominations.--The members
appointed under this paragraph--
``(i) shall be in addition to the total number of members
appointed under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) shall be appointed from nominations submitted by
importers under such procedures as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.''.
(c) Importer Assessment.--Section 113(g) of the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(g)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Assessments.--'' after ``(g)'';
(2) by designating the first through fifth sentences as
paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively, and indenting
appropriately; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Importers.--
``(A) In general.--The order shall provide that each
importer of imported dairy products shall pay an assessment
to the Board in the manner prescribed by the order.
``(B) Time for payment.--The assessment on imported dairy
products shall be paid by the importer to Customs at the time
of the entry of the products into the United States and shall
be remitted by Customs to the Board. For purposes of this
subparagraph, entry of the products into the United States
shall be deemed to have occurred when the products are
released from custody of Customs and introduced into the
stream of commerce within the United States. Importers
include persons who hold title to foreign-produced dairy
products immediately upon release by Customs, as well as
persons who act on behalf of others, as agents, brokers, or
consignees, to secure the release of dairy products from
Customs and the introduction of the released dairy products
into the stream of commerce.
``(C) Rate.--The rate of assessment on imported dairy
products shall be determined in the same manner as the rate
of assessment per hundredweight or the equivalent of milk.
``(D) Value of products.--For the purpose of determining
the assessment on imported dairy products under subparagraph
(C), the value to be placed on imported dairy products shall
be established by the Secretary in a fair and equitable
manner.
``(E) Use of assessments on imported dairy products.--
Assessments collected on imported dairy products shall not be
used for foreign market promotion.''.
(d) Records.--Section 113(k) of the Dairy Production
Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(k)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``person receiving'' and
inserting ``importer of imported dairy products, each person
receiving''.
(e) Importer Eligibility To Vote in Referendum.--Section
116(b) of the Dairy Promotion Stabilization Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 4507(b)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting after ``of producers'' the following:
``and importers''; and
(B) by inserting after ``the producers'' the following:
``and importers''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting after ``commercial
use'' the following: ``and importers voting in the referendum
(who have been engaged in the importation of dairy products
during the same representative period, as determined by the
Secretary)''.
(f) Conforming Amendments To Reflect Addition of
Importers.--Section 110(b) of the Dairy Production
Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501(b)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting after ``commercial use'' the following:
``and on imported dairy products''; and
(B) by striking ``products produced in the United States.''
and inserting ``products.''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting after ``produce
milk'' the following: ``or the right of any person to import
dairy products''.

CHAPTER 2--SUGAR

SEC. 151. SUGAR PROGRAM.

(a) Continuation of Program.--Subsection (i) of section 156
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(other than subsection (f))''; and
(2) by striking ``2002 crops'' and inserting ``2011
crops''.
(b) Termination of Marketing Assessment.--Effective as of
October 1, 2001, subsection (f) of such section is repealed.
(c) Loan Rate Adjustments.--Subsection (c) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Reduction in Loan Rates'' and inserting
``Loan Rate Adjustments''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``Reduction required'' and inserting
``Possible reduction''; and
(B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
(d) Notification.--Subsection (e) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Prevention of onerous notification requirements.--The
Secretary may not impose or enforce any prenotification or
similar administrative requirement that has the effect of
preventing a processor from choosing to forfeit the loan
collateral upon the maturity of the loan.''.
(e) In Process Sugar.--Such section is further amended by
inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection
(f):
``(f) Loans for In-Process Sugar.--
``(1) Availability; rate.--The Secretary shall make
nonrecourse loans available to processors of domestically
grown sugarcane and sugar beets for in-process sugars and
syrups derived from such crops. The loan rate shall be equal
to 80 percent of the loan rate applicable to raw cane sugar
or refined beet sugar, depending on the source material for
the in-process sugars and syrups.
``(2) Further processing upon forfeiture.--As a condition
on the forfeiture of in-process sugars and syrups serving as
collateral for a loan under paragraph (1), the processor
shall, within such reasonable time period as the Secretary
may prescribe and at no cost to the Commodity Credit
Corporation, convert the in-process sugars and syrups into
raw cane sugar or refined beet sugar of acceptable grade and
quality for sugars eligible for loans under subsection (a) or
(b). Once the in-process sugars and syrups are fully
processed into raw cane sugar or refined beet sugar, the
processor shall transfer the sugar to the Corporation, which
shall make a payment to the processor in an amount equal to
the difference between the loan rate for raw cane sugar or
refined beet sugar, whichever applies, and the loan rate the
processor received under paragraph (1).
``(3) Loan conversion.--If the processor does not forfeit
the collateral as described in paragraph (2), but instead
further processes the in-process sugars and syrups into raw
cane sugar or refined beet sugar and repays the loan on the
in-process sugars and syrups, the processor may then obtain a
loan under subsection (a) or (b) on the raw cane sugar or
refined beet sugar, as appropriate.
``(4) Definition.--In this subsection the term `in-process
sugars and syrups' does not include raw sugar, liquid sugar,
invert sugar, invert syrup, or other finished products that
are otherwise eligible for loans under subsection (a) or
(b).''.
(f) Administration of Program.--Such section is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Avoiding Forfeitures; Corporation Inventory
Disposition.--
``(1) No cost.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall operate the sugar program established under
this section at no cost to the Federal Government by avoiding
the forfeiture of sugar to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
``(2) Inventory disposition.--In support of the objective
specified in paragraph (1), the Commodity Credit Corporation
may accept bids for commodities in the inventory of the
Corporation from (or otherwise make available such
commodities, on appropriate terms and conditions, to)
processors of sugarcane and processors of sugar beets (when
the processors are acting in conjunction with the producers
of the sugarcane or sugar beets processed by such processors)
in return for the reduction of production of raw cane sugar
or refined beet sugar, as appropriate. The authority provided
under this paragraph is in addition to any authority of the
Corporation under any other law.''.
(g) Information Reporting.--Subsection (h) of such section
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Duty of producers to report.--

[[Page H6197]]

``(A) Proportionate share states.--The Secretary shall
require a producer of sugarcane located in a State (other
than Puerto Rico) in which there are in excess of 250
sugarcane producers to report, in the manner prescribed by
the Secretary, the producer's sugarcane yields and acres
planted to sugarcane.
``(B) Other states.--The Secretary may require producers of
sugarcane or sugar beets not covered by paragraph (1) to
report, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, each
producer's sugarcane or sugar beet yields and acres planted
to sugarcane or sugar beets, respectively.
``(3) Duty of importers to report.--The Secretary shall
require an importer of sugars, syrups or molasses to be used
for human consumption or to be used for the extraction of
sugar for human consumption, except such sugars, syrups, or
molasses that are within the quantities of tariff-rate quotas
that are at the lower rate of duties, to report, in the
manner prescribed by the Secretary, the quantities of such
products imported and the sugar content or equivalent of such
products.''; and
(3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``this subsection''.
(h) Interest Rate.--Section 163 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283) is amended
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For
purposes of this section, raw cane sugar, refined beet sugar,
and in process sugar eligible for a loan under section 156
shall not be considered an agricultural commodity.''.

SEC. 152. REAUTHORIZE PROVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1938 REGARDING SUGAR.

(a) Information Reporting.--Section 359a of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa) is
repealed.
(b) Estimates.--Section 359b of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb) is amended:
(1) in the section heading--
(A) by inserting ``FLEXIBLE'' before ``MARKETING''; and
(B) by striking ``AND CRYSTALLINE FRUCTOSE'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Before'' and inserting ``Not later than
August 1 before'';
(ii) by striking ``1992 through 1998'' and inserting ``2002
through 2011'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(other than
sugar'' and all that follows through ``stocks'';
(iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (E), respectively;
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) the quantity of sugar that would provide for
reasonable carryover stocks;'';
(vi) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated--

(I) by striking ``or'' and all that follows through
``beets''; and
(II) by striking the ``and'' following the semicolon;

(vii) by inserting after subparagraph (C), as so
redesignated, the following:
``(D) the quantity of sugar that will be available from the
domestic processing of sugarcane and sugar beets; and''; and
(viii) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated--

(I) by striking ``quantity of sugar'' and inserting
``quantity of sugars, syrups, and molasses'';
(II) by inserting ``human'' after ``imported for'' the
first place it appears;
(III) by inserting after ``consumption'' the first place it
appears the following: ``or to be used for the extraction of
sugar for human consumption'';
(IV) by striking ``year'' and inserting ``year, whether
such articles are under a tariff-rate quota or are in excess
or outside of a tariff rate quota''; and
(V) by striking ``(other than sugar'' and all that follows
through ``carry-in stocks'';

(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exclusion.--The estimates in this section shall not
include sugar imported for the production of polyhydric
alcohol or to be refined and re-exported in refined form or
in sugar containing products.'';
(D) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``Quarterly reestimates'' and inserting
``Reestimates''; and
(ii) by inserting ``as necessary, but'' after ``a fiscal
year'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) In general.--By the beginning of each fiscal year,
the Secretary shall establish for that fiscal year
appropriate allotments under section 359c for the marketing
by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from
domestically-produced sugarcane at a level that the Secretary
estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under the loan program for
sugar.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or crystalline
fructose'';
(4) by striking subsection (c);
(5) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c); and
(6) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``or manufacturer'' and all that follows
through ``(2)''; and
(ii) by striking ``or crystalline fructose''.
(c) Establishment.--Section 359c of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359cc) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by inserting ``FLEXIBLE'' after
``OF'';
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``flexible'' after
``establish'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``1,250,000'' and
inserting ``1,532,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``to the maximum extent
practicable'';
(4) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(c) Marketing Allotment for Sugar Derived from Sugar
Beets and Marketing Allotment for Sugar Derived from
Sugarcane.--The overall allotment quantity for the fiscal
year shall be allotted among--
``(1) sugar derived from sugar beets by establishing a
marketing allotment for a fiscal year at a quantity equal to
the product of multiplying the overall allotment quantity for
the fiscal year by the percentage of 54.35; and
``(2) sugar derived from sugarcane by establishing a
marketing allotment for a fiscal year at a quantity equal to
the product of multiplying the overall allotment quantity for
the fiscal year by the percentage of 45.65.'';
(5) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Filling Cane Sugar and Beet Sugar Allotments.--Each
marketing allotment for cane sugar established under this
section may only be filled with sugar processed from
domestically grown sugarcane, and each marketing allotment
for beet sugar established under this section may only be
filled with sugar domestically processed from sugar beets.'';
(6) by striking subsection (e);
(7) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e);
(8) in subsection (e), as so redesignated--
(A) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The
allotment for sugar'' and indenting such paragraph
appropriately;
(B) in such paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``the 5'' and inserting ``the'';
(ii) by inserting after ``sugarcane is produced,'' the
following: ``after a hearing, if requested by the affected
sugar cane processors and growers, and on such notice as the
Secretary by regulation may prescribe,'';
(iii) by striking ``on the basis of past marketings'' and
all that follows through ``allotments'', and inserting ``as
provided in this subsection and section 359d(a)(2)(A)(iv)'';
and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Offshore allotment.--
``(A) Collectively.--Prior to the allotment of sugar
derived from sugarcane to any other State, 325,000 short
tons, raw value shall be allotted to the offshore States.
``(B) Individually.--The collective offshore State
allotment provided for under subparagraph (A) shall be
further allotted among the offshore States in which sugarcane
is produced, after a hearing if requested by the affected
sugar cane processors and growers, and on such notice as the
Secretary by regulation may prescribe, in a fair and
equitable manner on the basis of--
``(i) past marketings of sugar, based on the average of the
2 highest years of production of raw cane sugar from the 1996
through 2000 crops;
``(ii) the ability of processors to market the sugar
covered under the allotments for the crop year; and
``(iii) past processings of sugar from sugarcane based on
the 3 year average of the crop years 1998 through 2000.
``(3) Mainland allotment.--The allotment for sugar derived
from sugarcane, less the amount provided for under paragraph
(2), shall be allotted among the mainland States in the
United States in which sugarcane is produced, after a hearing
if requested by the affected sugar cane processors and
growers, and on such notice as the Secretary by regulation
may prescribe, in a fair and equitable manner on the basis
of--
``(A) past marketings of sugar, based on the average of the
2 highest years of production of raw cane sugar from the 1996
through 2000 crops;
``(B) the ability of processors to market the sugar covered
under the allotments for the crop year; and
``(C) past processings of sugar from sugarcane, based on
the 3 crop years with the greatest processings (in the
mainland States collectively) during the 1991 through 2000
crop years.'';
(9) by inserting after subsection (e), as so redesignated,
the following new subsection (f):
``(f) Filling Cane Sugar Allotments.--Except as otherwise
provided in section 359e, a State cane sugar allotment
established under subsection (e) for a fiscal year may be
filled only with sugar processed from sugarcane grown in the
State covered by the allotment.'';
(10) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``359b(a)(2)--'' and all
that follows through the comma at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``359b(a)(3), adjust upward or downward
marketing allotments in a fair and equitable manner'';

[[Page H6198]]

(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``359f(b)'' and inserting
``359f(c)''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``Reductions'' and inserting ``Carry-over
of reductions'';
(ii) by inserting after ``this subsection, if'' the
following: ``at the time of the reduction'';
(iii) by striking ``price support'' and inserting
``nonrecourse'';
(iv) by striking ``206'' and all that follows through ``the
allotment'' and inserting ``156 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272),''; and
(v) by striking ``, if any,''; and
(11) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) Suspension of Allotments.--Whenever the Secretary
estimates, or reestimates, under section 359b(a), or has
reason to believe that imports of sugars, syrups or molasses
for human consumption or to be used for the extraction of
sugar for human consumption, whether under a tariff-rate
quota or in excess or outside of a tariff-rate quota, will
exceed 1.532 million short tons, raw value equivalent, and
that such imports would lead to a reduction of the overall
allotment quantity, the Secretary shall suspend the marketing
allotments until such time as such imports have been
restricted, eliminated, or otherwise reduced to or below the
level of 1.532 million tons.''.
(d) Allocation.--Section 359d of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359dd) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``(i) In general.--'' before ``The
Secretary shall'' and indenting such clause appropriately;
(B) in clause (i), as so designated--
(i) by striking ``interested parties'' and inserting ``the
affected sugar cane processors and growers'';
(ii) by striking ``by taking'' and all that follows through
``allotment allocated.'' and inserting ``with this
subparagraph.''; and
(iii) by inserting at the end the following new sentence:
``Each such allocation shall be subject to adjustment under
section 359c(g).'';
(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following new
clauses:
``(ii) Multiple processor states.--Except as provided in
clause (iii), the Secretary shall allocate the allotment for
cane sugar among multiple cane sugar processors in a single
State based upon--

``(I) past marketings of sugar, based on the average of the
2 highest years of production of raw cane sugar from among
the 1996 through 2000 crops;
``(II) the ability of processors to market sugar covered by
that portion of the allotment allocated for the crop year;
``(III) past processings of sugar from sugarcane, based on
the average of the 3 highest years from among crop years 1996
through 2000; and
``(IV) however, only with respect to allotments under
subclauses (I), (II), and (III) attributable to the former
operations of the Talisman processing facility, shall be
allocated among processors in the State coincident with the
provisions of the agreements of March 25 and March 26, 1999,
between the affected processors and the Department of the
Interior.

``(iii) Proportionate share states.--In the case of States
subject to section 359f(c), the Secretary shall allocate the
allotment for cane sugar among multiple cane sugar processors
in a single state based upon--

``(I) past marketings of sugar, based on the average of the
two highest years of production of raw cane sugar from among
the 1997 through 2001 crop years;
``(II) the ability of processors to market sugar covered by
that portion of the allotments allocated for the crop year;
and
``(III) past processings of sugar from sugarcane, based on
the average of the two highest crop years from the five crop
years 1997 through 2001.

``(iv) New entrants.--Notwithstanding clauses (ii) and
(iii), the Secretary, on application of any processor that
begins processing sugarcane on or after the date of enactment
of this clause, and after a hearing if requested by the
affected sugarcane processors and growers, and on such notice
as the Secretary by regulation may prescribe, may provide
such processor with an allocation which provides a fair,
efficient and equitable distribution of the allocations from
the allotment for the State in which the processor is located
and, in the case of proportionate share States, shall
establish proportionate shares in an amount sufficient to
produce the sugarcane required to satisfy such allocations.
However, the allotment for a new processor under this clause
shall not exceed 50,000 short tons, raw value.
``(v) Transfer of ownership.--Except as otherwise provided
in section 359f(c)(8), in the event that a sugarcane
processor is sold or otherwise transferred to another owner,
or closed as part of an affiliated corporate group processing
consolidation, the Secretary shall transfer the allotment
allocation for the processor to the purchaser, new owner, or
successor in interest, as applicable, of the processor.'';
and
(2) in subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``interested parties'' and inserting ``the
affected sugar beet processors and growers''; and
(B) by striking ``processing capacity'' and all that
follows through ``allotment allocated'' and inserting the
following: ``the marketings of sugar processed from sugar
beets of any or all of the 1996 through 2000 crops, and such
other factors as the Secretary may deem appropriate after
consultation with the affected sugar beet processors and
growers. However, in the case of any processor which has
started processing sugar beets after January 1, 1996, the
Secretary shall provide such processor with an allocation
which provides a fair, efficient and equitable distribution
of the allocations''.
(e) Reassignment.--Section 359e(b) of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B) by striking the ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) if after the reassignments, the deficit cannot be
completely eliminated, the Secretary shall reassign the
estimated quantity of the deficit to the sale of any
inventories of sugar held by the Commodity Credit
Corporation; and''; and
(D) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated, by inserting
``and sales'' after ``reassignments''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking the ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``reassign the
remainder to imports.'' and inserting ``use the estimated
quantity of the deficit for the sale of any inventories of
sugar held by the Commodity Credit Corporation; and''; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) if after such reassignments and sales, the deficit
cannot be completely eliminated, the Secretary shall reassign
the remainder to imports.''.
(f) Producer Provisions.--Section 359f of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ff) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``processor's allocation'' in the second
sentence and inserting ``allocation to the processor''; and
(B) by inserting after ``request of either party'' the
following: ``, and such arbitration should be completed
within 45 days, but not more than 60 days, of the request'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Sugar Beet Processing Facility Closures.-- In the
event that a sugar beet processing facility is closed and the
sugar beet growers who previously delivered beets to such
facility desire to deliver their beets to another processing
company:
``(1) Such growers may petition the Secretary to modify
existing allocations to accommodate such a transition; and
``(2) The Secretary may increase the allocation to the
processing company to which the growers desire to deliver
their sugar beets, and which the processing company agrees to
accept, not to exceed its processing capacity, to accommodate
the change in deliveries.
``(3) Such increased allocation shall be deducted from the
allocation to the company that owned the processing facility
that has been closed and the remaining allocation will be
unaffected.
``(4) The Secretary's determination on the issues raised by
the petition shall be made within 60 days of the filing of
the petition.'';
(4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``the preceding five
years'' and inserting ``the two highest years from among the
years 1999, 2000, and 2001'';
(B) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``each'' and all that
follows through ``in effect'' and inserting ``the two highest
of the three (3) crop years 1999, 2000, and 2001''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) Processing facility closures.--In the event that a
sugarcane processing facility subject to this subsection is
closed and the sugarcane growers who previously delivered
sugarcane to such facility desire to deliver their sugarcane
to another processing company--
``(A) such growers may petition the Secretary to modify
existing allocations to accommodate such a transition;
``(B) the Secretary may increase the allocation to the
processing company to which the growers desire to deliver the
sugarcane, and which the processing company agrees to accept,
not to exceed its processing capacity, to accommodate the
change in deliveries;
``(C) such increased allocation shall be deducted from the
allocation to the company that owned the processing facility
that has been closed and the remaining allocation will be
unaffected; and
``(D) the Secretary's determination on the issues raised by
the petition shall be made within 60 days of the filing of
the petition.''.
(g) Conforming Amendments.--(1) The heading of part VII of
subtitle B of Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 359aa et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``PART VII--FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR''.

(2) Section 359g of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
(7 U.S.C. 1359gg) is amended--
(A) by striking ``359f'' each place it appears and
inserting ``359f(c)'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``3 consecutive'' and
inserting ``5 consecutive''; and

[[Page H6199]]

(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or adjusted'' after
``share established''.
(3) Section 359j(c) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359jj) is amended--
(A) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows:
``Definitions.--'';
(B) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) United states and state.--Notwithstanding''; and
(C) by inserting after such paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Offshore states.--For purposes of this part, the term
`offshore States' means the sugarcane producing States
located outside of the continental United States.''.
(h) Lifting of Suspension.--Section 171(a)(1)(E) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7301(a)(1)(E)) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``, but only with respect to
sugar marketings through fiscal year 2002''.

SEC. 153. STORAGE FACILITY LOANS.

(a) Storage Facility Loan Program.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law and as soon as practicable after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall amend part 1436 of title 7, Code of Federal
Regulations, to establish a sugar storage facility loan
program to provide financing for processors of domestically-
produced sugarcane and sugar beets to build or upgrade
storage and handling facilities for raw sugars and refined
sugars.
(b) Eligible Processors.--Storage facility loans shall be
made available to any processor of domestically produced
sugarcane or sugar beets that has a satisfactory credit
history, determines a need for increased storage capacity
(taking into account the effects of marketing allotments),
and demonstrates an ability to repay the loan.
(c) Term of Loans.--Storage facility loans shall be for a
minimum of seven years, and shall be in such amounts and on
such terms and conditions (including down payment, security
requirements, and eligible equipment) as are normal,
customary, and appropriate for the size and commercial nature
of the borrower.
(d) Administration.--The sugar storage facility loan
program shall be administered using the services, facilities,
funds, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

CHAPTER 3--PEANUTS

SEC. 161. DEFINITIONS.

In this chapter:
(1) Counter-cyclical payment.--The term ``counter-cyclical
payment'' means a payment made to peanut producers under
section 164.
(2) Effective price.--The term ``effective price'' means
the price calculated by the Secretary under section 164 for
peanuts to determine whether counter-cyclical payments are
required to be made under such section for a crop year.
(3) Historic peanut producer.--The term ``historic peanut
producer'' means a peanut producer on a farm in the United
States that produced or attempted to produce peanuts during
any or all of crop years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
(4) Fixed, decoupled payment.--The term ``fixed, decoupled
payment'' means a payment made to peanut producers under
section 163.
(5) Payment acres.--The term ``payment acres'' means 85
percent of the peanut acres on a farm, as established under
section 162, upon which fixed, decoupled payments and
counter-cyclical payments are to be made.
(6) Peanut acres.--The term ``peanut acres'' means the
number of acres assigned to a particular farm by historic
peanut producers pursuant to section 162(b).
(7) Payment yield.--The term ``payment yield'' means the
yield assigned to a particular farm by historic peanut
producers pursuant to section 162(b).
(8) Peanut producer.--The term ``peanut producer'' means an
owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper who shares
in the risk of producing a crop of peanuts in the United
States and who is entitled to share in the crop available for
marketing from the farm, or would have shared had the crop
been produced.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(11) Target price.--The term ``target price'' means the
price per ton of peanuts used to determine the payment rate
for counter-cyclical payments.
(12) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

SEC. 162. ESTABLISHMENT OF PAYMENT YIELD, PEANUT ACRES, AND
PAYMENT ACRES FOR A FARM.

(a) Establishment of Payment Yield and Payment Acres.--
(1) Determination of average yield.--The Secretary shall
determine, for each historic peanut producer, the average
yield for peanuts on each farm on which the historic peanut
producer produced peanuts for the 1998 through 2001 crop
years, excluding any crop year in which the producer did not
produce peanuts. If, for any of these four crop years in
which peanuts were planted on a farm by the producer, the
farm would have satisfied the eligibility criteria
established to carry out section 1102 of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public
Law 105-277), the Secretary shall assign a yield for the
producer for that year equal to 65 percent of the county
yield, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Determination of acreage average.--The Secretary shall
determine, for each historic peanut producer, the four-year
average of acreage actually planted in peanuts by the
historic peanut producer for harvest on one or more farms
during crop years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 and any acreage
that the producer was prevented from planting to peanuts
during such crop years because of drought, flood, or other
natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of
the producer, as determined by the Secretary. If more than
one historic peanut producer shared in the risk of producing
the crop on the farm, the historic peanut producers shall
receive their proportional share of the number of acres
planted (or prevented from being planted) to peanuts for
harvest on the farm based on the sharing arrangement that was
in effect among the producers for the crop.
(3) Time for determinations; considerations.--The Secretary
shall make the determinations required by this subsection not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act. In making such determinations, the Secretary shall take
into account changes in the number and identity of persons
sharing in the risk of producing a peanut crop since the 1998
crop year, including providing a method for the assignment of
average acres and average yield to a farm when the historic
peanut producer is no longer living or an entity composed of
historic peanut producers has been dissolved.
(b) Assignment of Payment Yield and Peanut Acres to
Farms.--
(1) Assignment by historic peanut producers.--The Secretary
shall give each historic peanut producer an opportunity to
assign the average peanut yield and average acreage
determined under subsection (a) for the producer to cropland
on a farm.
(2) Payment yield.--The average of all of the yields
assigned by historic peanut producers to a farm shall be
deemed to be the payment yield for that farm for the purpose
of making fixed decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments under this chapter.
(3) Peanut acres.--Subject to subsection (e), the total
number of acres assigned by historic peanut producers to a
farm shall be deemed to be the peanut acres for a farm for
the purpose of making fixed decoupled payments and counter-
cyclical payments under this chapter.
(c) Time for Assignment.--The opportunity to make the
assignments described in subsection (b) shall be available to
historic peanut producers only once. The historic peanut
producers shall notify the Secretary of the assignments made
by such producers under such subsections not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Payment Acres.--The payment acres for peanuts on a farm
shall be equal to 85 percent of the peanut acres assigned to
the farm.
(e) Prevention of Excess Peanut Acres.--
(1) Required reduction.--If the sum of the peanut acres for
a farm, together with the acreage described in paragraph (2),
exceeds the actual cropland acreage of the farm, the
Secretary shall reduce the quantity of peanut acres for the
farm or base acres for one or more covered commodities for
the farm as necessary so that the sum of the peanut acres and
acreage described in paragraph (2) does not exceed the actual
cropland acreage of the farm. The Secretary shall give the
peanut producers on the farm the opportunity to select the
peanut acres or base acres against which the reduction will
be made.
(2) Other acreage.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any base acres for the farm under subtitle A.
(B) Any acreage on the farm enrolled in the conservation
reserve program or wetlands reserve program under chapter 1
of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.).
(C) Any other acreage on the farm enrolled in a
conservation program for which payments are made in exchange
for not producing an agricultural commodity on the acreage.
(3) Exception for double-cropped acreage.--In applying
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make an exception in the
case of double cropping, as determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 163. AVAILABILITY OF FIXED, DECOUPLED PAYMENTS FOR
PEANUTS.

(a) Payment Required.--For each of the 2002 through 2011
crop years, the Secretary shall make fixed, decoupled
payments to peanut producers on a farm.
(b) Payment Rate.--The payment rate used to make fixed,
decoupled payments with respect to peanuts for a crop year
shall be equal to $36 per ton.
(c) Payment Amount.--The amount of the fixed, decoupled
payment to be paid to the peanut producers on a farm for a
covered commodity for a crop year shall be equal to the
product of the following:
(1) The payment rate specified in subsection (b).
(2) The payment acres on the farm.

[[Page H6200]]

(3) The payment yield for the farm.
(d) Time for Payment.--
(1) General rule.--Fixed, decoupled payments shall be paid
not later than September 30 of each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011. In the case of the 2002 crop, payments may
begin to be made on or after December 1, 2001.
(2) Advance payments.--At the option of a peanut producer,
50 percent of the fixed, decoupled payment for a fiscal year
shall be paid on a date selected by the peanut producer. The
selected date shall be on or after December 1 of that fiscal
year, and the peanut producer may change the selected date
for a subsequent fiscal year by providing advance notice to
the Secretary.
(3) Repayment of advance payments.--If a peanut producer
that receives an advance fixed, decoupled payment for a
fiscal year ceases to be a peanut producer before the date
the fixed, decoupled payment would otherwise have been made
by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the peanut producer
shall be responsible for repaying the Secretary the full
amount of the advance payment.

SEC. 164. AVAILABILITY OF COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS FOR
PEANUTS.

(a) Payment Required.--During the 2002 through 2011 crop
years for peanuts, the Secretary shall make counter-cyclical
payments with respect to peanuts whenever the Secretary
determines that the effective price for peanuts is less than
the target price.
(b) Effective Price.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
effective price for peanuts is equal to the sum of the
following:
(1) The higher of the following:
(A) The national average market price received by peanut
producers during the 12-month marketing year for peanuts, as
determined by the Secretary.
(B) The national average loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan for peanuts in effect for the same period
under this chapter.
(2) The payment rate in effect under section 163 for the
purpose of making fixed, decoupled payments.
(c) Target Price.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
target price for peanuts shall be equal to $480 per ton.
(d) Payment Rate.--The payment rate used to make counter-
cyclical payments for a crop year shall be equal to the
difference between--
(1) the target price; and
(2) the effective price determined under subsection (b).
(e) Payment Amount.--The amount of the counter-cyclical
payment to be paid to the peanut producers on a farm for a
crop year shall be equal to the product of the following:
(1) The payment rate specified in subsection (d).
(2) The payment acres on the farm.
(3) The payment yield for the farm.
(f) Time for Payments.--
(1) General rule.--The Secretary shall make counter-
cyclical payments under this section for a peanut crop as
soon as possible after determining under subsection (a) that
such payments are required for that crop year.
(2) Partial payment.--The Secretary may permit, and, if so
permitted, a peanut producer may elect to receive, up to 40
percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment, as
determined by the Secretary, to be made under this section
for a peanut crop upon completion of the first six months of
the marketing year for that crop. The peanut producer shall
repay to the Secretary the amount, if any, by which the
partial payment exceeds the actual counter-cyclical payment
to be made for that crop.

SEC. 165. PRODUCER AGREEMENT REQUIRED AS CONDITION ON
PROVISION OF FIXED, DECOUPLED PAYMENTS AND
COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

(a) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--
(1) Requirements.--Before the peanut producers on a farm
may receive fixed, decoupled payments or counter-cyclical
payments with respect to the farm, the peanut producers shall
agree, in exchange for the payments--
(A) to comply with applicable conservation requirements
under subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.);
(B) to comply with applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.);
(C) to comply with the planting flexibility requirements of
section 166; and
(D) to use the land on the farm, in an amount equal to the
peanut acres, for an agricultural or conserving use, and not
for a nonagricultural commercial or industrial use, as
determined by the Secretary.
(2) Compliance.--The Secretary may issue such rules as the
Secretary considers necessary to ensure peanut producer
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1).
(b) Effect of Foreclosure.--A peanut producer may not be
required to make repayments to the Secretary of fixed,
decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments if the farm
has been foreclosed on and the Secretary determines that
forgiving the repayments is appropriate to provide fair and
equitable treatment. This subsection shall not void the
responsibilities of the peanut producer under subsection (a)
if the peanut producer continues or resumes operation, or
control, of the farm. On the resumption of operation or
control over the farm by the producer, the requirements of
subsection (a) in effect on the date of the foreclosure shall
apply.
(c) Transfer or Change of Interest in Farm.--
(1) Termination.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), a
transfer of (or change in) the interest of a peanut producer
in peanut acres for which fixed, decoupled payments or
counter-cyclical payments are made shall result in the
termination of the payments with respect to the peanut acres,
unless the transferee or owner of the acreage agrees to
assume all obligations under subsection (a). The termination
shall be effective on the date of the transfer or change.
(2) Transfer of payment base.--There is no restriction on
the transfer of a farm's peanut acres or payment yield as
part of a change in the peanut producers on the farm.
(3) Modification.--At the request of the transferee or
owner, the Secretary may modify the requirements of
subsection (a) if the modifications are consistent with the
objectives of such subsection, as determined by the
Secretary.
(4) Exception.--If a peanut producer entitled to a fixed,
decoupled payment or counter-cyclical payment dies, becomes
incompetent, or is otherwise unable to receive the payment,
the Secretary shall make the payment, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(d) Acreage Reports.--As a condition on the receipt of any
benefits under this chapter, the Secretary shall require
peanut producers to submit to the Secretary acreage reports.
(e) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out this
chapter, the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to
protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.
(f) Sharing of Payments.--The Secretary shall provide for
the sharing of fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments among the peanut producers on a farm on a fair and
equitable basis.

SEC. 166. PLANTING FLEXIBILITY.

(a) Permitted Crops.--Subject to subsection (b), any
commodity or crop may be planted on peanut acres on a farm.
(b) Limitations and Exceptions Regarding Certain
Commodities.--
(1) Limitations.--The planting of the following
agricultural commodities shall be prohibited on peanut acres:
(A) Fruits.
(B) Vegetables (other than lentils, mung beans, and dry
peas).
(C) Wild rice.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the planting
of an agricultural commodity specified in such paragraph--
(A) in any region in which there is a history of double-
cropping of peanuts with agricultural commodities specified
in paragraph (1), as determined by the Secretary, in which
case the double-cropping shall be permitted;
(B) on a farm that the Secretary determines has a history
of planting agricultural commodities specified in paragraph
(1) on peanut acres, except that fixed, decoupled payments
and counter-cyclical payments shall be reduced by an acre for
each acre planted to such an agricultural commodity; or
(C) by a peanut producer who the Secretary determines has
an established planting history of a specific agricultural
commodity specified in paragraph (1), except that--
(i) the quantity planted may not exceed the peanut
producer's average annual planting history of such
agricultural commodity in the 1991 through 1995 crop years
(excluding any crop year in which no plantings were made), as
determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments shall be reduced by an acre for each acre planted to
such agricultural commodity.

SEC. 167. MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY
PAYMENTS FOR PEANUTS.

(a) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--
(1) Availability.--For each of the 2002 through 2011 crops
of peanuts, the Secretary shall make available to peanut
producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
for peanuts produced on the farm. The loans shall be made
under terms and conditions that are prescribed by the
Secretary and at the loan rate established under subsection
(b).
(2) Eligible production.--Any production of peanuts on a
farm shall be eligible for a marketing assistance loan under
this subsection.
(3) Treatment of certain commingled commodities.--In
carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall make loans
to a peanut producer that is otherwise eligible to obtain a
marketing assistance loan, but for the fact the peanuts owned
by the peanut producer are commingled with other peanuts in
facilities unlicensed for the storage of agricultural
commodities by the Secretary or a State licensing authority,
if the peanut producer obtaining the loan agrees to
immediately redeem the loan collateral in accordance with
section 166 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7286).
(4) Options for obtaining loan.--A marketing assistance
loan under this subsection, and loan deficiency payments
under subsection (e), may be obtained at the option of the
peanut producer through--
(A) a designated marketing association of peanut producers
that is approved by the Secretary;
(B) a loan servicing agent approved by the Secretary; or

[[Page H6201]]

(C) the Farm Service Agency.
(5) Loan servicing agent.--As a condition of the
Secretary's approval of an entity to serve as a loan
servicing agent or to handle or store peanuts for peanut
producers that receive any marketing loan benefits, the
entity shall agree to provide adequate storage (if available)
and handling of peanuts at the commercial rate to other
approved loan servicing agents and marketing associations.
(b) Loan Rate.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under for peanuts subsection (a) shall be equal to $350
per ton.
(c) Term of Loan.--
(1) In general.--A marketing assistance loan for peanuts
under subsection (a) shall have a term of nine months
beginning on the first day of the first month after the month
in which the loan is made.
(2) Extensions prohibited.--The Secretary may not extend
the term of a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a).
(d) Repayment Rate.--The Secretary shall permit peanut
producers to repay a marketing assistance loan for peanuts
under subsection (a) at a rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
subsection (b), plus interest (as determined by the
Secretary); or
(2) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of peanuts by the
Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing peanuts; and
(D) allow peanuts produced in the United States to be
marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally.
(e) Loan Deficiency Payments.--
(1) Availability.--The Secretary may make loan deficiency
payments available to peanut producers who, although eligible
to obtain a marketing assistance loan for peanuts under
subsection (a), agree to forgo obtaining the loan for the
peanuts in return for payments under this subsection.
(2) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment under this
subsection shall be computed by multiplying--
(A) the loan payment rate determined under paragraph (3)
for peanuts; by
(B) the quantity of the peanuts produced by the peanut
producers, excluding any quantity for which the producers
obtain a loan under subsection (a).
(3) Loan payment rate.--For purposes of this subsection,
the loan payment rate shall be the amount by which--
(A) the loan rate established under subsection (b); exceeds
(B) the rate at which a loan may be repaid under subsection
(d).
(4) Time for payment.--The Secretary shall make a payment
under this subsection to a peanut producer with respect to a
quantity of peanuts as of the earlier of the following:
(A) The date on which the peanut producer marketed or
otherwise lost beneficial interest in the peanuts, as
determined by the Secretary.
(B) The date the peanut producer requests the payment.
(f) Compliance With Conservation and Wetlands
Requirements.--As a condition of the receipt of a marketing
assistance loan under subsection (a), the peanut producer
shall comply with applicable conservation requirements under
subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3811 et seq.) and applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) during the term of the loan.
(g) Reimbursable Agreements and Payment of Expenses.--To
the extent practicable, the Secretary shall implement any
reimbursable agreements or provide for the payment of
expenses under this chapter in a manner that is consistent
with such activities in regard to other commodities.
(h) Termination of Superseded Price Support Authority.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 155 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7271) is
repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1441 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 101(b) (7 U.S.C. 1441(b)), by striking ``and
peanuts''; and
(B) in section 408(c) (7 U.S.C. 1428(c)), by striking
``peanuts,''.

SEC. 168. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

(a) Official Inspection.--
(1) Mandatory inspection.--All peanuts placed under a
marketing assistance loan under section 167 shall be
officially inspected and graded by Federal or State
inspectors.
(2) Optional inspection.--Peanuts not placed under a
marketing assistance loan may be graded at the option of the
peanut producer.
(b) Termination of Peanut Administrative Committee.--The
Peanut Administrative Committee established under Marketing
Agreement No. 1436, which regulates the quality of
domestically produced peanuts under the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), reenacted with
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, is terminated.
(c) Establishment of Peanut Standards Board.--The Secretary
shall establish a Peanut Standards Board for the purpose of
assisting in the establishment of quality standards with
respect to peanuts. The authority of the Board is limited to
assisting in the establishment of quality standards for
peanuts. The members of the Board should fairly reflect all
regions and segments of the peanut industry.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with
the 2002 crop of peanuts.

SEC. 169. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

For purposes of sections 1001 through 1001C of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 through 1308-3), separate
payment limitations shall apply to peanuts with respect to--
(1) fixed, decoupled payments;
(2) counter-cyclical payments, and
(3) limitations on marketing loan gains and loan deficiency
payments.

SEC. 170. TERMINATION OF MARKETING QUOTA PROGRAMS FOR PEANUTS
AND COMPENSATION TO PEANUT QUOTA HOLDERS FOR
LOSS OF QUOTA ASSET VALUE.

(a) Repeal of Marketing Quota.--
(1) Repeal.--Part VI of subtitle B of title III of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1357-1359a),
relating to peanuts, is repealed.
(2) Treatment of 2001 crop.--Part VI of subtitle B of title
III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.
1357-1359a), as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply with respect
to the 2001 crop of peanuts notwithstanding the amendment
made by paragraph (1).
(b) Compensation Contract Required.--The Secretary shall
offer to enter into a contract with eligible peanut quota
holders for the purpose of providing compensation for the
lost value of the quota on account of the repeal of the
marketing quota program for peanuts under subsection (a).
Under the contracts, the Secretary shall make payments to
eligible peanut quota holders during fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
(c) Time for Payment.--The payments required under the
contracts shall be provided in five equal installments not
later than September 30 of each of fiscal years 2002 through
2006.
(d) Payment Amount.--The amount of the payment for a fiscal
year to a peanut quota holder under a contract shall be equal
to the product obtained by multiplying--
(1) $0.10 per pound; by
(2) the actual farm poundage quota (excluding seed and
experimental peanuts) established for the peanut quota
holder's farm under section 358-1(b) of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(b)) for the 2001
marketing year.
(e) Assignment of Payments.--The provisions of section 8(g)
of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16
U.S.C. 590h(g)), relating to assignment of payments, shall
apply to the payments made to peanut quota holders under the
contracts. The peanut quota holder making the assignment, or
the assignee, shall provide the Secretary with notice, in
such manner as the Secretary may require, of any assignment
made under this subsection.
(f) Peanut Quota Holder Defined.--In this section, the term
``peanut quota holder'' means a person or enterprise that
owns a farm that--
(1) was eligible, immediately before the date of the
enactment of this Act, to have a peanut quota established
upon it;
(2) if there are not quotas currently established, would be
eligible to have a quota established upon it for the
succeeding crop year, in the absence of the amendment made by
subsection (a); or
(3) is otherwise a farm that was eligible for such a quota
at the time the general quota establishment authority was
repealed.

The Secretary shall apply this definition without regard to
temporary leases or transfers or quotas for seed or
experimental purposes.

Subtitle D--Administration

SEC. 181. ADMINISTRATION GENERALLY.

(a) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary
shall carry out this title through the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
(b) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by
the Secretary under this title shall be final and conclusive.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity
Credit Corporation, as appropriate, shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title. The
issuance of the regulations 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
know as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(d) Protection of Producers.--The protection afforded
producers that elect the option to accelerate the receipt of
any payment under a production flexibility contract payable
under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7212 note) shall also apply to the advance
payment of fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical
payments.
(e) Adjustment Authority Related to Uruguay Round
Compliance.--If the Secretary determines that expenditures
under subtitles A, B, and C that are subject to the total
allowable domestic support levels under the Uruguay Round
Agreements (as defined in section 2(7) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(7))), as in effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act,

[[Page H6202]]

will exceed such allowable levels for any applicable
reporting period, the Secretary may make adjustments in the
amount of such expenditures during that period to ensure that
such expenditures do not exceed, but in no case are less
than, such allowable levels.

SEC. 182. EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT
AUTHORITY.

(a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--Section 171(a)(1)
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 7301(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``2002'' both
places it appears and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--Section 171(b)(1) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7301(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``2002'' both
places it appears and inserting ``2011''.
(c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--Section 171(c)
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 7301(c)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 183. LIMITATIONS.

(a) Limitation on Amounts Received.--Section 1001 of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``payments under production flexibility
contracts'' and inserting ``fixed, decoupled payments'';
(B) by striking ``contract payments made under the
Agricultural Market Transition Act to a person under 1 or
more production flexibility contracts'' and inserting
``fixed, decoupled payments made to a person''; and
(C) by striking ``4'' and inserting ``5'';
(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3)--
(A) by striking ``payments specified'' and all that follows
through ``and oilseeds'' and inserting ``following payments
that a person shall be entitled to receive'';
(B) by striking ``75'' and inserting ``150'';
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
all that follows through ``the following'' in paragraph (3);
(D) by striking ``section 131'' and all that follows
through ``section 132'' and inserting ``section 121 of the
Farm Security Act of 2001 for a crop of any covered commodity
at a lower level than the original loan rate established for
the commodity under section 122''; and
(E) by striking ``section 135'' and inserting ``section
125''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) Limitation on counter-cyclical payments.--The total
amount of counter-cyclical payments that a person may receive
during any crop year shall not exceed the amount specified in
paragraph (2), as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Farm Security Act of 2001.''.
(b) Definitions.--Paragraph (4) of section 1001 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) Definitions.--In this title, the terms `covered
commodity', `counter-cyclical payment', and `fixed, decoupled
payment' have the meaning given those terms in section 100 of
the Farm Security Act of 2001.''.
(c) Transition.--Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308), as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply with
respect to fiscal year 2001 and the 2001 crop of any covered
commodity.

SEC. 184. ADJUSTMENTS OF LOANS.

Section 162(b) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7282(b)) is amended by striking
``this title'' and inserting ``this title and title I of the
Farm Security Act of 2001''.

SEC. 185. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF PRODUCERS FOR DEFICIENCIES.

Section 164 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7284) is amended by striking
``this title'' each places it appears and inserting ``this
title and title I of the Farm Security Act of 2001''.

SEC. 186. EXTENSION OF EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
REGARDING LOANS.

Section 166 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7286) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``In General.--'' and inserting ``Specific
Payments.--''; and
(B) by striking ``subtitle C'' and inserting ``subtitle C
of this title and title I of the Farm Security Act of 2001'';
and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) by striking ``producer'' the first two places it
appears and inserting ``person''; and
(B) by striking ``to producers under subtitle C'' and
inserting ``by the Commodity Credit Corporation''.

SEC. 187. ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS.

The provisions of section 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(g)), relating to
assignment of payments, shall apply to payments made under
the authority of this Act. The producer making the
assignment, or the assignee, shall provide the Secretary with
notice, in such manner as the Secretary may require, of any
assignment made under this section.

TITLE II--CONSERVATION

Subtitle A--Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in section 1230(a), by striking ``1996 through 2002''
and inserting ``2002 through 2011'';
(2) by striking subsection (c) of section 1230; and
(3) in section 1230A (16 U.S.C. 3830a), by striking
``chapter'' each place it appears and inserting ``title''.

Subtitle B--Conservation Reserve Program

SEC. 211. REAUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--Section 1231 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended in each of subsections (a)
and (d) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Scope of Program.--Section 1231(a) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3831(a)) is amended by striking ``and water'' and
inserting ``, water, and wildlife''.

SEC. 212. ENROLLMENT.

(a) Eligibility.--Section 1231(b) of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) marginal pasturelands to be devoted to natural
vegetation in or near riparian areas or for similar water
quality purposes, including marginal pasturelands converted
to wetlands or established as wildlife habitat;''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the lands contribute to the degradation of soil,
water, or air quality, or would pose an on-site or off-site
environmental threat to soil, water, or air quality if
permitted to remain in agricultural production; and
``(ii) soil, water, and air quality objectives with respect
to the land cannot be achieved under the environmental
quality incentives program established under chapter 4;'';
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) if the Secretary determines that enrollment of such
lands would contribute to conservation of ground or surface
water.''.
(b) Increase in Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1231(d) of
such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended by striking
``36,400,000'' and inserting ``39,200,000''.
(c) Eligibility on Contract Expiration.--Section 1231(f) of
such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Eligibility on Contract Expiration.--On the
expiration of a contract entered into under this subchapter,
the land subject to the contract shall be eligible to be
considered for re-enrollment in the conservation reserve.''.
(d) Balance of Natural Resource Purposes.--
(1) In general.--Section 1231 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Balance of Natural Resource Purposes.--In determining
the acceptability of contract offers under this subchapter,
the Secretary shall ensure an equitable balance among the
conservation purposes of soil erosion, water quality and
wildlife habitat.''.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue final regulations implementing section 1231(i) of the
Food Security Act of 1985, as added by paragraph (1) of this
subsection.

SEC. 213. DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS.

Section 1232 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3832) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``as described in
section 1232(a)(7) or for other purposes'' before ``as
permitted'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``where practicable, or
maintain existing cover'' before ``on such land''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``Secretary--'' and all
that follows and inserting ``Secretary may permit, consistent
with the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife
habitat--
``(A) managed grazing and limited haying, in which case the
Secretary shall reduce the conservation reserve payment
otherwise payable under the contract by an amount
commensurate with the economic value of the activity;
``(B) wind turbines for the provision of wind energy,
whether or not commercial in nature; and
``(C) land subject to the contract to be harvested for
recovery of biomass used in energy production, in which case
the Secretary shall reduce the conservation reserve payment
otherwise payable under the contract by an amount
commensurate with the economic value of such activity;''; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and redesignating
subsection (e) as subsection (c).

SEC. 214. REFERENCE TO CONSERVATION RESERVE PAYMENTS.

Subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of
such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831-3836) is amended--
(1) by striking ``rental payment'' each place it appears
and inserting ``conservation reserve payment'';
(2) by striking ``rental payments'' each place it appears
and inserting ``conservation reserve payments''; and
(3) in the paragraph heading for section 1235(e)(4), by
striking ``rental payment'' and inserting ``conservation
reserve payment''.

Subtitle C--Wetlands Reserve Program

SEC. 221. ENROLLMENT.

(a) Maximum.--Section 1237(b) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (1)
and inserting the following:

[[Page H6203]]

``(1) Annual enrollment.--In addition to any acres enrolled
in the wetlands reserve program as of the end of a calendar
year, the Secretary may in the succeeding calendar year
enroll in the program a number of additional acres equal to--
``(A) if the succeeding calendar year is calendar year
2002, 150,000; or
``(B) if the succeeding calendar year is a calendar year
after calendar year 2002--
``(i) 150,000; plus
``(ii) the amount (if any) by which 150,000, multiplied by
the number of calendar years in the period that begins with
calendar year 2002 and ends with the calendar year preceding
such succeeding calendar year, exceeds the total number of
acres added to the reserve during the period.''.
(b) Methods.--Section 1237 of such Act (16 U.S.C.
3837(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Methods of enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll
acreage into the wetlands reserve program through the use of
easements, restoration cost share agreements, or both.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (g).
(c) Extension.--Section 1237(c) of such Act (16 U.S.C.
3837(c)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 222. EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS.

Section 1237A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3837a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) prohibits the alteration of wildlife habitat and
other natural features of such land, unless specifically
permitted by the plan;'';
(2) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) shall be consistent with applicable State law.'';
(3) by striking subsection (h).

SEC. 223. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

Section 1237C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3837c) is amended by striking subsection (d).

SEC. 224. CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP; AGREEMENT MODIFICATION;
TERMINATION.

Section 1237E(a)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3837e(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) the ownership change occurred due to foreclosure on
the land and the owner of the land immediately before the
foreclosure exercises a right of redemption from the mortgage
holder in accordance with State law; or''.

Subtitle D--Environmental Quality Incentives Program

SEC. 231. PURPOSES.

Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa) is amended--
(1) by striking ``to--'' and all that follows through
``provides--'' and inserting ``to provide--'';
(2) by striking ``that face the most serious threats to''
and inserting ``to address environmental needs and provide
benefits to air,'';
(3) by redesignating the subparagraphs (A) through (D) that
follow the matter amended by paragraph (2) of this section as
paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively;
(4) by moving each of such redesignated provisions 2 ems to
the left; and
(5) by striking ``farmers and ranchers'' each place it
appears and inserting ``producers''.

SEC. 232. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1240A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-1) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``non-industrial private forest land,''
before ``and other land''; and
(B) by striking ``poses a serious threat'' and all that
follows and inserting ``provides increased environmental
benefits to air, soil, water, or related resources.''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, including non-
industrial private forestry'' before the period.

SEC. 233. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Reauthorization.--Section 1240B(a)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Term of Contracts.--Section 1240B(b)(2) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``not less than
5, nor more than 10, years'' and inserting ``not less than 1
year, nor more than 10 years''.
(c) Structural Practices.--Section 1240B(c)(1)(B) of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(c)(1)(B)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(B) achieving the purposes established under this
subtitle.''.
(d) Elimination of Certain Limitations on Eligibility for
Cost-Share Payments.--Section 1240B(e)(1) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating
subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B); and
(2) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated), by striking
``or 3''.
(e) Incentive Payments.--Section 1240B of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``, Incentive
Payments,''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively, and inserting after subsection (e)
the following:
``(f) Conservation Incentive Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make incentive
payments in an amount and at a rate determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to perform
multiple land management practices and to promote the
enhancement of soil, water, wildlife habitat, air, and
related resources.
``(2) Special rule.--In determining the amount and rate of
incentive payments, the Secretary may accord great weight to
those practices that include residue, nutrient, pest,
invasive species, and air quality management.''.

SEC. 234. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

Section 1240C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-3) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (3)
and inserting the following:
``(1) aid producers in complying with this title and
Federal and State environmental laws, and encourage
environmental enhancement and conservation;
``(2) maximize the beneficial usage of animal manure and
other similar soil amendments which improve soil health,
tilth, and water-holding capacity; and
``(3) encourage the utilization of sustainable grazing
systems, such as year-round, rotational, or managed
grazing.''.

SEC. 235. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

Section 1240E(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-5(a)) is amended by striking ``that
incorporates such conservation practices'' and all that
follows and inserting ``that provides or will continue to
provide increased environmental benefits to air, soil, water,
or related resources.''.

SEC. 236. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

Section 1240F(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-6(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) providing technical assistance or cost-share payments
for developing and implementing 1 or more structural
practices or 1 or more land management practices, as
appropriate;''.

SEC. 237. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-7) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting
``$50,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting
``$200,000'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``the maximization of
environmental benefits per dollar expended and''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c).

SEC. 238. GROUND AND SURFACE WATER CONSERVATION.

Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-8) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1240H. GROUND AND SURFACE WATER CONSERVATION.

``(a) Support for Conservation Measures.--The Secretary
shall provide cost-share payments and low-interest loans to
encourage ground and surface water conservation, including
irrigation system improvement, and provide incentive payments
for capping wells, reducing use of water for irrigation, and
switching from irrigation to dryland farming.
``(b) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall make available the following
amounts to carry out this section:
``(1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
``(3) $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2011.''.

Subtitle E--Funding and Administration

SEC. 241. REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 242. FUNDING.

Section 1241(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3841(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$130,000,000'' and all that follows
through ``2002, for'' and inserting ``the following amounts
for purposes of'';
(2) by striking ``subtitle D.'' and inserting ``subtitle
D:''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(A) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
``(B) $1,025,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and
2003.
``(C) $1,200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004, 2005,
and 2006.
``(D) $1,400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007, 2008,
and 2009.
``(E) $1,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and
2011.''.

SEC. 243. ALLOCATION FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION.

Section 1241(b)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3841(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 244. ADMINISTRATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Broadening of Exception to Acreage Limitation.--Section
1243(b)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3843(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``that--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``that the action would not adversely
affect the local economy of the county.''.
(b) Rules Governing Provision of Technical Assistance.--
Section 1243(d) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3843(d)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(d) Rules Governing Provision of Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance under this title to a producer eligible for such
assistance, by providing the assistance directly or, at the

[[Page H6204]]

option of the producer, through an approved third party if
available.
``(2) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the
provision of, and the amount of, technical assistance made
available under subchapters B and C of chapter 1 and chapter
4 of subtitle D.
``(3) Certification of third-party providers.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall, by regulation, establish a system for
approving persons to provide technical assistance pursuant to
chapter 4 of subtitle D. For purposes of this paragraph, a
person shall be considered approved if they have a memorandum
of understanding regarding the provision of technical
assistance in place with the Secretary.
``(B) Expertise required.--In prescribing such regulations,
the Secretary shall ensure that persons with expertise in the
technical aspects of conservation planning, watershed
planning, environmental engineering, including commercial
entities, nonprofit entities, State or local governments or
agencies, and other Federal agencies, are eligible to become
approved providers of such technical assistance.''.
(c) Duty of Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Section 1770(d) of such Act (7 U.S.C.
2276(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (9);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) title XII of this Act.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 1770(e) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 2276(e)) is amended--
(A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting
``Exceptions''; and
(B) by inserting ``, or as necessary to carry out a program
under title XII of this Act as determined by the Secretary''
before the period.

Subtitle F--Other Programs

SEC. 251. PRIVATE GRAZING LAND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

Section 386(d)(1) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 2005b(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) encouraging the utilization of sustainable grazing
systems, such as year-round, rotational, or managed
grazing.''.

SEC. 252. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

Subsection (c) of section 387 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3836a) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make
available the following amounts to carry out this section:
``(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(2) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
``(3) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
``(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
``(5) $45,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
``(6) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and
2011.''.

SEC. 253. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

(a) Removal of Acreage Limitation; Expansion of Purposes.--
Subsection (a) of section 388 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``not less than 170,000, nor more than
340,000 acres of''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or agricultural land that contains
historic or archaeological resources,'' after ``other
productive soil''.
(b) Funding.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended to
read as follows:
``(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$50,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this
section.''.
(c) Eligible Entities.--Such section is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``a State or local
government'' and inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term `eligible entity' means--
``(1) any agency of any State or local government, or
federally recognized Indian tribe, including farmland
protection boards and land resource councils established
under State law; and
``(2) any organization that--
``(A) is organized for, and at all times since the
formation of the organization has been operated principally
for, one or more of the conservation purposes specified in
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(B) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
of that Code;
``(C) is described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code; or
``(D) is described in section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is
controlled by an organization described in section 509(a)(2)
of that Code.''.

SEC. 254. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Purpose.--Section 1528 of the Agriculture and Food Act
of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1528. It is the purpose'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1528. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

``It is the purpose''; and
(2) by inserting ``through designated RC&D councils''
before ``in rural areas''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 1529 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3452)
is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1529. As used in this subtitle--'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 1529. DEFINITIONS.

``In this title:'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``RC&D council'' before ``area plan'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``through control of
nonpoint sources of pollution'';
(C) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``natural resources based'' and inserting
``resource-based'';
(ii) by striking ``development of aquaculture,'';
(iii) by striking ``and satisfaction'' and inserting
``satisfaction''; and
(iv) by inserting ``, food security, economic development,
and education'' before the semicolon; and
(D) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``other'' the 1st
place it appears and inserting ``land management'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``any State, local unit
of government, or local nonprofit organization'' and
inserting ``the designated RC&D council'';
(4) by striking paragraphs (4) through (6) and inserting
the following:
``(4)(A) The term `financial assistance' means the
Secretary may--
``(i) provide funds directly to RC&D councils or
associations of RC&D councils through grants, cooperative
agreements, and interagency agreements that directly
implement RC&D area plans; and
``(ii) may join with other federal agencies through
interagency agreements and other arrangements as needed to
carry out the program's purpose.
``(B) Funds may be used for such things as--
``(i) technical assistance;
``(ii) financial assistance in the form of grants for
planning, analysis and feasibility studies, and business
plans;
``(iii) training and education; and
``(iv) all costs associated with making such services
available to RC&D councils or RC&D associations.
``(5) The term `RC&D council' means the responsible
leadership of the RC&D area. RC&D councils and associations
are non-profit entities whose members are volunteers and
include local civic and elected officials. Affiliations of
RC&D councils are formed in states and regions.'';
(5) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``and federally
recognized Indian tribes'' before the period;
(6) in paragraph (9), by striking ``works of improvement''
and inserting ``projects'';
(7) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as
paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and
(8) by striking paragraph (10) and inserting the following:
``(9) The term `project' means any action taken by a
designated RC&D council that achieves any of the elements
identified under paragraph (1).''.
(c) Establishment and Scope.--Section 1530 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3453) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1530. The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1530. ESTABLISHMENT AND SCOPE.

``The Secretary''; and
(2) by striking ``the technical and financial assistance
necessary to permit such States, local units of government,
and local nonprofit organizations'' and inserting ``through
designated RC&D councils the technical and financial
assistance necessary to permit such RC&D Councils''.
(d) Selection of Designated Areas.--Section 1531 of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3454) is amended by striking the section
heading and all that follows through ``Sec. 1531. The
Secretary'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 1531. SELECTION OF DESIGNATED AREAS.

``The Secretary''.
(e) Authority of Secretary.--Section 1532 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3455) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1532. In carrying'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1532. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.

``In carrying'';
(2) in each of paragraphs (1) and (3)--
(A) by striking ``State, local unit of government, or local
nonprofit organization'' and inserting ``RC&D council''; and
(B) by inserting ``RC&D council'' before ``area plan'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``RC&D council'' before
``area plans''; and
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``States, local units of
government, and local nonprofit organizations'' and inserting
``RC&D councils or affiliations of RC&D councils''.
(f) Technical and Financial Assistance.--Section 1533 of
such Act (16 U.S.C. 3456) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1533. (a) Technical'' and inserting the
following:

[[Page H6205]]

``SEC. 1533. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Technical'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``State, local unit of government, or local
nonprofit organization to assist in carrying out works of
improvement specified in an'' and inserting ``RC&D councils
or affiliations of RC&D councils to assist in carrying out a
project specified in a RC&D council'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``State, local unit of government, or local
nonprofit organization'' and inserting ``RC&D council or
affiliate''; and
(ii) by striking ``works of improvement'' each place it
appears and inserting ``project'';
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``works of improvement'' and inserting
``project''; and
(ii) by striking ``State, local unit of government, or
local nonprofit organization'' and inserting ``RC&D
council'';
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``works of improvement''
and all that follows and inserting ``project concerned is
necessary to accomplish and RC&D council area plan
objective;'';
(E) in paragraph (4), by striking ``the works of
improvement provided for in the'' and inserting ``the project
provided for in the RC&D council'';
(F) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``federally recognized
Indian tribe'' before ``or local'' each place it appears; and
(G) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``RC&D council'' before
``area plan'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``work of improvement''
and inserting ``project''; and
(4) in subsection (c), by striking ``any State, local unit
of government, or local nonprofit organization to carry out
any'' and inserting ``RC&D council to carry out any RC&D
council''.
(g) Resource Conservation and Development Policy Board.--
Section 1534 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3457) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1534. (a) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1534. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
BOARD.

``(a) The Secretary''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``seven''.
(h) Program Evaluation.--Section 1535 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3458) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1535. The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1535. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

``The Secretary'';
(2) by inserting ``with assistance from RC&D councils''
before ``provided'';
(3) by inserting ``federally recognized Indian tribes,''
before ``local units''; and
(4) by striking ``1986'' and inserting ``2007''.
(i) Limitation on Assistance.--Section 1536 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3458) is amended by striking the section heading and
all that follows through ``Sec. 1536. The program'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 1536. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.

``The program''.
(j) Supplemental Authority of the Secretary.--Section 1537
of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3460) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1537. The authority'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1537. SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.

``The authority''; and
(2) by striking ``States, local units of government, and
local nonprofit organizations'' and inserting ``RC&D
councils''.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1538 of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3461) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 1538. There are'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 1538. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are''; and
(2) by striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through
2002''.

SEC. 255. GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830-3837f) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Subchapter D--Grassland Reserve Program

``SEC. 1238. GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Farm Service Agency, shall establish a grassland reserve
program (referred to in this subchapter as the `program') to
assist owners in restoring and conserving eligible land
described in subsection (c).
``(b) Enrollment Conditions.--
``(1) Maximum enrollment.--The total number of acres
enrolled in the program shall not exceed 2,000,000 acres, not
more than 1,000,000 of which shall be restored grassland, and
not more than 1,000,000 of which shall be virgin (never
cultivated) grassland.
``(2) Methods of enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll in
the program for a willing owner not less than 100 contiguous
acres of land west of the 90th meridian or not less than 50
contiguous acres of land east of the 90th meridian through
the use of--
``(A) 10-year, 15-year, or 20-year contracts; and
``(B) 30-year or permanent easements.
``(3) Limitation on use of easements.--Not more than one-
third of the total amount of funds expended under the program
may be used to acquire 30-year and permanent easements.
``(c) Eligible Land.--Land shall be eligible to be enrolled
in the program if the Secretary determines that--
``(1) the land is natural grass or shrubland; or
``(2) the land--
``(A) is located in an area that has been historically
dominated by natural grass or shrubland; and
``(B) has potential to serve as habitat for animal or plant
populations of significant ecological value if the land is
restored to natural grass or shrubland.

``SEC. 1238A. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS.

``(a) Requirements of Landowner.--
``(1) Contracts.--To be eligible to enroll land in the
program under a multi-year contract, the owner of the land
shall--
``(A) agree to comply with the terms of the contract and
related restoration agreements; and
``(B) agree to the suspension of any existing cropland base
and allotment history for the land under any program
administered by the Secretary.
``(2) Easements.--To be eligible to enroll land in the
program under an easement, the owner of the land shall--
``(A) grant an easement that runs with the land to the
Secretary;
``(B) create and record an appropriate deed restriction in
accordance with applicable State law to reflect the easement;
``(C) provide a written statement of consent to the
easement signed by persons holding a security interest or any
vested interest in the land;
``(D) provide proof of unencumbered title to the underlying
fee interest in the land that is the subject of the easement;
``(E) agree to comply with the terms of the easement and
related restoration agreements; and
``(F) agree to the suspension of any existing cropland base
and allotment history for the land under any program
administered by the Secretary.
``(b) Terms of Contracts and Easements.--A contract or
easement under the program shall--
``(1) permit--
``(A) common grazing practices on the land in a manner that
is consistent with maintaining the viability of natural grass
and shrub species indigenous to that locality;
``(B) haying, mowing, or haying for seed production, except
that such uses shall not be permitted until after the end of
the nesting season for birds in the local area which are in
significant decline or are conserved pursuant to State or
Federal law, as determined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service State conservationist; and
``(C) construction of fire breaks and fences, including
placement of the posts necessary for fences;
``(2) prohibit--
``(A) the production of any agricultural commodity (other
than hay); and
``(B) unless allowed under subsection (d), the conduct of
any other activity that would disturb the surface of the land
covered by the contract or easement; and
``(3) include such additional provisions as the Secretary
determines are appropriate to carry out or facilitate the
administration of this subchapter.
``(c) Ranking Applications.--
``(1) Establishment of criteria.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications for
contracts or easements under this subchapter.
``(2) Emphasis.--In establishing the criteria, the
Secretary shall emphasize support for native grass and
shrubland, grazing operations, and plant and animal
biodiversity.
``(d) Restoration Agreements.--The Secretary shall
prescribe the terms by which grassland that is subject to a
contract or easement under the program shall be restored. The
agreement shall include duties of the land owner and the
Secretary, including the Federal share of restoration
payments and technical assistance.
``(e) Violations.--On the violation of the terms or
conditions of a contract, easement, or restoration agreement
entered into under the program--
``(1) the contract or easement shall remain in force; and
``(2) the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or
part of any payments received by the owner under this
subchapter, with interest on the payments as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.

``SEC. 1238B. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.

``(a) In General.--In return for the granting of an
easement or the execution of a contract by an owner under
this subchapter, the Secretary shall make payments under
subsection (b), make payments of the Federal share of
restoration under subsection (c), and provide technical
assistance to the owner in accordance with this section.
``(b) Contract and Easement Payments.--
``(1) Contracts.--In return for entering into a contract by
an owner under this subchapter, the Secretary shall make
annual payments to the owner during the term of the contract
in an amount that is not more than 75 percent of the grazing
value of the land.
``(2) Easements.--
``(A) In general.--In return for the granting of an
easement by an owner under this subchapter, the Secretary
shall make easement payments to the owner in an amount equal
to--
``(i) in the case of a permanent easement, the fair market
value of the land less the

[[Page H6206]]

grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement; and
``(ii) in the case of a 30-year easement or an easement for
the maximum duration allowed under applicable State law, 30
percent of the fair market value of the land less the grazing
value of the land for the period that the land is encumbered
by the easement.
``(B) Payment schedule.--Easement payments may be made as a
single payment or annual payments, but not to exceed 10
annual payments of equal or unequal amounts, as agreed to by
the Secretary and the owner.
``(c) Federal Share of Restoration.--The Secretary shall
make payments to the owner of not more than--
``(1) in the case of virgin (never cultivated) grassland,
90 percent of the costs of carrying out measures and
practices necessary to restore grassland functions and
values; or
``(2) in the case of restored grassland, 75 percent of such
costs.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--A landowner who is receiving a
benefit under this subchapter shall be eligible to receive
technical assistance in accordance with section 1243(d) to
assist the owner or operator in carrying out a contract
entered into under this subchapter.
``(e) Payments to Others.--If an owner who is entitled to a
payment under this subchapter dies, becomes incompetent, is
otherwise unable to receive the payment, or is succeeded by
another person who renders or completes the required
performance, the Secretary shall make the payment, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary and
without regard to any other provision of law, in such manner
as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in light
of all the circumstances.''.
(b) Funding.--Section 1241 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3841) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Grassland Reserve Program.--For fiscal years 2002
through 2011, the Secretary shall use a total of $254,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
subchapter D of chapter 1 of subtitle D.''.

SEC. 256. FARMLAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.

Subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3830-3839bb) is amended by inserting after chapter
1 (and the matter added by section 255 of this Act) the
following:

``CHAPTER 2--FARMLAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

``SEC. 1239. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Agreement.--The terms `farmland stewardship
agreement' and `agreement' mean a stewardship contract
authorized by this chapter.
``(2) Contracting agency.--The term `contracting agency'
means a local conservation district, resource conservation
and development council, local office of the Department of
Agriculture, other participating government agency, or other
nongovernmental organization that is designated by the
Secretary to enter into farmland stewardship agreements on
behalf of the Secretary.
``(3) Eligible agricultural lands.--The term `eligible
agricultural lands' means private lands that are in primarily
native or natural condition or are classified as cropland,
pastureland, grazing lands, timberlands, or other lands as
specified by the Secretary that--
``(A) contain wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other natural
resources; or
``(B) provide benefits to the public at large, such as--
``(i) conservation of soil, water, and related resources;
``(ii) water quality protection or improvement;
``(iii) control of invasive and exotic species;
``(iv) wetland restoration, protection, and creation; and
``(v) wildlife habitat development and protection;
``(vi) preservation of open spaces, or prime, unique, or
other productive farm lands; and
``(vii) and other similar conservation purposes.
``(4) Farmland stewardship program; program.--The terms
`Farmland Stewardship Program' and `Program' mean the
conservation program of the Department of Agriculture
established by this chapter.

``SEC. 1239A. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
conservation program of the Department of Agriculture, to be
known as the Farmland Stewardship Program, that is designed
to more precisely tailor and target existing conservation
programs to the specific conservation needs and opportunities
presented by individual parcels of eligible agricultural
lands.
``(b) Relation to Other Conservation Programs.--Under the
Farmland Stewardship Program, the Secretary may implement, or
combine together, the features of--
``(1) the Wetlands Reserve Program;
``(2) the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program;
``(3) the Forest Land Enhancement Program;
``(4) the Farmland Protection Program; or
``(5) other conservation programs administered by other
Federal agencies and State and local government entities,
where feasible and with the consent of the administering
agency or government.
``(c) Funding Sources.--
``(1) In general.--The Farmland Stewardship Program and
agreements under the Program shall be funded by the Secretary
using--
``(A) the funding authorities of the conservation programs
that are implemented in whole, or in part, through the use of
agreements or easements; and
``(B) such funds as are provided to carry out the programs
specified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b).
``(2) Cost-sharing.--It shall be a requirement of the
Farmland Stewardship Program that the majority of the funds
to carry out the Program must come from other existing
conservation programs, which may be Federal, State, regional,
local, or private, that are combined into and made a part of
an agreement, or from matching funding contributions made by
State, regional, or local agencies and divisions of
government or from private funding sources.
``(d) Personnel Costs.--The Secretary may use the Natural
Resources Conservation Service to carry out the Farmland
Stewardship Program.
``(e) Technical Assistance.--An owner or operator who is
receiving a benefit under this chapter shall be eligible to
receive technical assistance in accordance with section
1243(d) to assist the owner or operator in carrying out a
contract entered into under this chapter.

``SEC. 1239B. USE OF FARMLAND STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS.

``(a) Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out
the Farmland Stewardship Program by entering into stewardship
contracts as determined by the Secretary, to be known as
farmland stewardship agreements, with the owners or operators
of eligible agricultural lands to maintain and protect for
the natural and agricultural resources on the lands.
``(b) Basic Purposes.--An agreement with the owner or
operator of eligible agricultural lands shall be used--
``(1) to negotiate a mutually agreeable set of guidelines,
practices, and procedures under which conservation practices
will be provided by the owner or operator to protect,
maintain, and, where possible, improve, the natural resources
on the lands covered by the agreement in return for annual
payments to the owner or operator;
``(2) to implement a conservation program or series of
programs where there is no such program or to implement
conservation management activities where there is no such
activity; and
``(3) to expand conservation practices and resource
management activities to a property where it is not possible
at the present time to negotiate or reach agreement on a
public purchase of a fee-simple or less-than-fee interest in
the property for conservation purposes.
``(c) Modification of Other Conservation Program
Elements.--If most, but not all, of the limitations,
conditions, and requirements of a conservation program that
is implemented in whole, or in part, through the Farmland
Stewardship Program are met with respect to a parcel of
eligible agricultural lands, and the purposes to be achieved
by the agreement to be entered into for such lands are
consistent with the purposes of the conservation program,
then the Secretary may waive any remaining limitations,
conditions, or requirements of the conservation program that
would otherwise prohibit or limit the agreement.
``(d) State and Local Conservation Priorities.--To the
maximum extent practicable, agreements shall address the
conservation priorities established by the State and locality
in which the eligible agricultural lands are located.
``(e) Watershed Enhancement.--To the extent practicable,
the Secretary shall encourage the development of Farmland
Stewardship Program applications on a watershed basis.

``SEC. 1239C. PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO PROGRAM.

``(a) Authority of Secretary Exercised Through
Partnerships.--The Secretary may administer agreements under
the Farmland Stewardship Program in partnership with other
Federal, State, and local agencies whose programs are
incorporated into the Program under section 1239A.
``(b) Designation and Use of Contracting Agencies.--Subject
to subsection (c), the Secretary may authorize a local
conservation district, resource conservation & development
district, nonprofit organization, or local office of the
Department of Agriculture or other participating government
agency to enter into and administer agreements under the
Program as a contracting agency on behalf of the Secretary.
``(c) Conditions on Designation.--The Secretary may
designate an eligible district or office as a contracting
agency under subsection (b) only if the district of office--
``(1) submits a written request for such designation to the
Secretary;
``(2) affirms that it is willing to follow all guidelines
for executing and administering an agreement, as promulgated
by the Secretary;
``(3) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that it has established working relationships with owners and
operators of eligible agricultural lands, and based on the
history of these working relationships, demonstrates that it
has the ability to work with owners and operators of eligible
agricultural lands in a cooperative manner;
``(4) affirms its responsibility for preparing all
documentation for the agreement, negotiating its terms with
an owner or operator, monitoring compliance, making annual
reports to the Secretary, and administering the agreement
throughout its full term; and

[[Page H6207]]

``(5) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that it has or will have the necessary staff resources and
expertise to carry out its responsibilities under paragraphs
(3) and (4).

``SEC. 1239D. PARTICIPATION OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

``(a) Application and Approval Process.--To participate in
the Farmland Stewardship Program, an owner or operator of
eligible agricultural lands shall--
``(1) submit to the Secretary an application indicating
interest in the Program and describing the owner's or
operator's property, its resources, and their ecological and
agricultural values;
``(2) submit to the Secretary a list of services to be
provided, a management plan to be implemented, or both, under
the proposed agreement;
``(3) if the application and list are accepted by the
Secretary, enter into an agreement that details the services
to be provided, management plan to be implemented, or both,
and requires compliance with the other terms of the
agreement.
``(b) Application on Behalf of an Owner or Operator.--A
designated contracting agency may submit the application
required by subsection (a) on behalf of an owner or operator
by if the contracting agency has secured the consent of the
owner or operator to enter into an agreement.''.

SEC. 257. SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

Section 14(h) of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012(h)) is amended--
(1) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1); and
(2) by striking all that follows paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding
fiscal year.''.

Subtitle G--Repeals

SEC. 261. PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985.

(a) Wetlands Mitigation Banking Program.--Section 1222 of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822) is amended by
striking subsection (k).
(b) Conservation Reserve Program.--
(1) Repeals.--(A) Section 1234(f) of such Act (16 U.S.C.
3834(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by
redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(B) Section 1236 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3836) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 1232(a)(5) of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``in
addition to the remedies provided under section 1236(d),''.
(B) Section 1234(d)(4) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3834(d)(4))
is amended by striking ``subsection (f)(4)'' and inserting
``subsection (f)(3)''.
(c) Wetlands Reserve Program.--Section 1237D(c) of such Act
(16 U.S.C. 3837d(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(d) Environmental Easement Program.--
(1) Repeal.--Chapter 3 of subtitle D of title XII of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3839-3839d) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1243(b)(3) of such Act
(16 U.S.C. 3843(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``or 3''.
(e) Conservation Farm Option.--Chapter 5 of subtitle D of
title XII of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3839bb) is repealed.
(f) Tree Planting Initiative.--Section 1256 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 2101 note) is repealed.

SEC. 262. NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
ACT.

Subtitle F of title III of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 5801-5809) is
repealed.

TITLE III--TRADE

SEC. 301. MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

Section 211(c)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7
U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and not more'' and inserting ``not
more'';
(2) by inserting ``and not more than $200,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2002 through 2011,'' after ``2002,''; and
(3) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2001''.

SEC. 302. FOOD FOR PROGRESS.

(a) In General.--Subsections (f)(3), (g), (k), and (l)(1)
of section 1110 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736o) are each amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.
(b) Increase in Funding.--Section 1110(l)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.1736o(l)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(2) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$15,000,000.
(c) Exclusion From Limitation.--Section 1110(e)(2) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(e)(2)) is amended
by inserting ``, and subsection (g) does not apply to such
commodities furnished on a grant basis or on credit terms
under title I of the Agricultural Trade Development Act of
1954'' before the final period.
(d) Transportation Costs.--Section 1110(f)(3) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(f)(3)) is amended by
striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''.
(e) Amounts of Commodities.--Section 1110(g) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(g)) is amended by
striking ``500,000'' and inserting ``1,000,000''.
(f) Multiyear Basis.--Section 1110(j) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(j)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``is encouraged'';
and
(2) by inserting ``to'' before ``approve''.
(g) Monetization.--Section 1110(l)(3) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(l)(3)) is amended by striking
``local currencies'' and inserting ``proceeds''.
(h) New Provisions.--Section 1110 of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(p) The Secretary is encouraged to finalize program
agreements and resource requests for programs under this
section before the beginning of the relevant fiscal year. By
November 1 of the relevant fiscal year, the Secretary shall
provide to the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a list of approved programs, countries, and
commodities, and the total amounts of funds approved for
transportation and administrative costs, under this
section.''.

SEC. 303. SURPLUS COMMODITIES FOR DEVELOPING OR FRIENDLY
COUNTRIES.

(a) Use of Currencies.--Section 416(b)(7)(D) of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431(b)(7)(D)) is
amended--
(1) in clauses (i) and (iii), by striking ``foreign
currency'' each place it appears;
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``Foreign currencies'' and inserting
``Proceeds''; and
(B) by striking ``foreign currency''; and
(3) in clause (iv)--
(A) by striking ``Foreign currency proceeds'' and inserting
``Proceeds'';
(B) by striking ``country of origin'' the second place it
appears and all that follows through ``as necessary to
expedite'' and inserting ``country of origin as necessary to
expedite'';
(C) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period; and
(D) by striking subclause (II).
(b) Implementation of Agreements.--Section 416(b)(8)(A) of
the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431(b)(8)(A)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(ii) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register,
not later than October 31 of each fiscal year, an estimate of
the commodities that shall be available under this section
for that fiscal year.
``(iii) The Secretary is encouraged to finalize program
agreements under this section not later than December 31 of
each fiscal year.''.

SEC. 304. EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

Section 301(e)(1)(G) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
(7 U.S.C. 5651(e)(1)(G)) is amended by inserting ``and for
each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year 2011'' after
``2002''.

SEC. 305. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 703 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C.5723) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Prior Years.--'' before ``There'';
(2) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2001''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Fiscal 2002 and Later.--For each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011 there are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this title, and, in
addition to any sums so appropriated, the Secretary shall use
$37,000,000 of the funds of, or an equal value of the
commodities of, the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this title.''.
(b) Value Added Products.--
(1) In general.--Section 702(a) of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.) is amended by inserting
``, with a significant emphasis on the importance of the
export of value-added United States agricultural products
into emerging markets'' after ``products''.
(2) Report to Congress.--Section 702 of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5722) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(c) Report to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall report annually to
appropriate congressional committees the amount of funding
provided, types of programs funded, the value added products
that have been targeted, and the foreign markets for those
products that have been developed.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
``(B) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.''.

SEC. 306. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

(a) Reauthorization.--Section 211(b)(1) of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Processed and High Value Products.--Section 202(k)(1)
of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622(k)(1))
is amended by striking ``, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting
``through 2011''.

SEC. 307. FOOD FOR PEACE (PL 480).

The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2 (7 U.S.C. 1691), by striking paragraph (2)
and inserting the following:

[[Page H6208]]

``(2) promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable
development, including agricultural development as well as
conflict prevention;'';
(2) in section 202(e)(1) (7 U.S.C. 1722(e)(1)), by striking
``not less than $10,000,000, and not more than $28,000,000''
and inserting ``not less than 5 percent and not more than 10
percent of such funds'';
(3) in section 203(a) (7 U.S.C. 1723(a)), by striking ``the
recipient country, or in a country'' and inserting ``one or
more recipient countries, or one or more countries'';
(4) in section 203(c) (7 U.S.C. 1723(c))--
(A) by striking ``foreign currency''; and
(B) by striking ``the recipient country, or in a country''
and inserting ``one or more recipient countries, or one or
more countries'';
(5) in section 203(d) (7 U.S.C. 1723(d))--
(A) by striking ``Foreign currencies'' and inserting
``Proceeds'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``income generating'' and inserting
``income-generating''; and
(ii) by striking ``the recipient country or within a
country'' and inserting ``one or more recipient countries, or
one or more countries''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting a comma after
``invested'' and ``used'';
(6) in section 204(a) (7 U.S.C. 1724(a))--
(A) by striking ``1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``2002
through 2011''; and
(B) by striking ``2,025,000'' and inserting ``2,250,000'';
(7) in section 205(f) (7 U.S.C. 1725(f)), by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011'';
(8) in section 207(a) (7 U.S.C. 1726a(a))--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Recipient countries.--A proposal to enter into a non-
emergency food assistance agreement under this title shall
identify the recipient country or countries subject to the
agreement.
``(2) Time for decision.--Not later than 120 days after
receipt by the Administrator of a proposal submitted by an
eligible organization under this title, the Administrator
shall make a decision concerning such proposal.'';
(9) in section 208(f), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011'';
(10) in section 403 (7 U.S.C. 1733), by inserting after
subsection (k) the following:
``(l) Sales Procedures.--Subsections (b) and (h) shall
apply to sales of commodities to generate proceeds for titles
II and III of this Act, section 416(b) of the Agricultural
Act of 1949, and section 1110 of the Food and Security Act of
1985. Such sales transactions may be in United States dollars
and other currencies.'';
(11) in section 407(c)(4), by striking ``2001 and 2002''
and inserting ``2001 through 2011'';
(12) in section 408, by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''; and
(13) in section 501(c), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 308. EMERGING MARKETS.

Section 1542 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended--
(1) in subsections (a) and (d)(1)(A)(i), by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)(H), by striking ``$10,000,000 in
any fiscal year'' and inserting ``$13,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2011''.

SEC. 309. BILL EMERSON HUMANITARIAN TRUST.

Subsections (b)(2)(B)(i), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of section 302
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1)
are each amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 310. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIALTY CROPS.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish an export assistance program (referred to in this
section as the ``program'') to address unique barriers that
prohibit or threaten the export of United States specialty
crops.
(b) Purpose.--The program shall provide direct assistance
through public and private sector projects and technical
assistance to remove, resolve, or mitigate sanitary and
phytosanitary and related barriers to trade.
(c) Priority.--The program shall address time sensitive and
strategic market access projects based on--
(1) trade effect on market retention, market access, and
market expansion; and
(2) trade impact.
(d) Funding.--The Secretary shall make available $3,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011 of the funds of,
or an equal value of commodities owned by, the Commodity
Credit Corporation.

SEC. 311. FARMERS FOR AFRICA AND CARIBBEAN BASIN PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Many African farmers and farmers in Caribbean Basin
countries use antiquated techniques to produce their crops,
which result in poor crop quality and low crop yields.
(2) Many of these farmers are losing business to farmers in
European and Asian countries who use advanced planting and
production techniques and are supplying agricultural produce
to restaurants, resorts, tourists, grocery stores, and other
consumers in Africa and Caribbean Basin countries.
(3) A need exists for the training of African farmers and
farmers in Caribbean Basin countries and other developing
countries in farming techniques that are appropriate for the
majority of eligible farmers in African or Caribbean
countries, including standard growing practices, insecticide
and sanitation procedures, and other farming methods that
will produce increased yields of more nutritious and
healthful crops.
(4) African-American and other American farmers, as well as
banking and insurance professionals, are a ready source of
agribusiness expertise that would be invaluable for African
farmers and farmers in Caribbean Basin countries.
(5) A United States commitment is appropriate to support
the development of a comprehensive agricultural skills
training program for these farmers that focuses on--
(A) improving knowledge of insecticide and sanitation
procedures to prevent crop destruction;
(B) teaching modern farming techniques, including the
identification and development of standard growing practices
and the establishment of systems for recordkeeping, that
would facilitate a continual analysis of crop production;
(C) the use and maintenance of farming equipment that is
appropriate for the majority of eligible farmers in African
or Caribbean Basin countries;
(D) expansion of small farming operations into agribusiness
enterprises through the development and use of village
banking systems and the use of agricultural risk insurance
pilot products, resulting in increased access to credit for
these farmers; and
(E) marketing crop yields to prospective purchasers
(businesses and individuals) for local needs and export.
(6) The participation of African-American and other
American farmers and American agricultural farming
specialists in such a training program promises the added
benefit of improving access to African and Caribbean Basin
markets for American farmers and United States farm equipment
and products and business linkages for United States
insurance providers offering technical assistance on, among
other things, agricultural risk insurance products.
(7) Existing programs that promote the exchange of
agricultural knowledge and expertise through the exchange of
American and foreign farmers have been effective in promoting
improved agricultural techniques and food security, and,
thus, the extension of additional resources to such farmer-
to- farmer exchanges is warranted.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agricultural farming specialist.--The term
``agricultural farming specialist'' means an individual
trained to transfer information and technical support
relating to agribusiness, food security, the mitigation and
alleviation of hunger, the mitigation of agricultural and
farm risk, maximization of crop yields, agricultural trade,
and other needs specific to a geographical location as
determined by the President.
(2) Caribbean basin country.--The term ``Caribbean Basin
country'' means a country eligible for designation as a
beneficiary country under section 212 of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702).
(3) Eligible farmer.--The term ``eligible farmer'' means an
individual owning or working on farm land (as defined by a
particular country's laws relating to property) in the sub-
Saharan region of the continent of Africa, in a Caribbean
Basin country, or in any other developing country in which
the President determines there is a need for farming
expertise or for information or technical support described
in paragraph (1).
(4) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Farmers for
Africa and Caribbean Basin Program established under this
section.
(c) Establishment of Program.--The President shall
establish a grant program, to be known as the ``Farmers for
Africa and Caribbean Basin Program'', to assist eligible
organizations in carrying out bilateral exchange programs
whereby African-American and other American farmers and
American agricultural farming specialists share technical
knowledge with eligible farmers regarding--
(1) maximization of crop yields;
(2) use of agricultural risk insurance as financial tools
and a means of risk management (as allowed by Annex II of the
World Trade Organization rules);
(3) expansion of trade in agricultural products;
(4) enhancement of local food security;
(5) the mitigation and alleviation of hunger;
(6) marketing agricultural products in local, regional, and
international markets; and
(7) other ways to improve farming in countries in which
there are eligible farmers.
(d) Eligible Grantees.--The President may make a grant
under the Program to--
(1) a college or university, including a historically black
college or university, or a foundation maintained by a
college or university; and
(2) a private organization or corporation, including
grassroots organizations, with an established and
demonstrated capacity to carry out such a bilateral exchange
program.
(e) Terms of Program.--(1) It is the goal of the Program
that at least 1,000 farmers participate in the training
program by December 31, 2005, of which 80 percent of the
total number of participating farmers will be African farmers
or farmers in Caribbean Basin countries and 20 percent of the
total number of participating farmers will be American
farmers.
(2) Training under the Program will be provided to eligible
farmers in groups to ensure

[[Page H6209]]

that information is shared and passed on to other eligible
farmers. Eligible farmers will be trained to be specialists
in their home communities and will be encouraged not to
retain enhanced farming technology for their own personal
enrichment.
(3) Through partnerships with American businesses, the
Program will utilize the commercial industrial capability of
businesses dealing in agriculture to train eligible farmers
on farming equipment that is appropriate for the majority of
eligible farmers in African or Caribbean Basin countries and
to introduce eligible farmers to the use of insurance as a
risk management tool.
(f) Selection of Participants.--(1) The selection of
eligible farmers, as well as African-American and other
American farmers and agricultural farming specialists, to
participate in the Program shall be made by grant recipients
using an application process approved by the President.
(2) Participating farmers must have sufficient farm or
agribusiness experience and have obtained certain targets
regarding the productivity of their farm or agribusiness.
(g) Grant Period.--The President may make grants under the
Program during a period of 5 years beginning on October 1 of
the first fiscal year for which funds are made available to
carry out the Program.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.

SEC. 312. GEORGE MCGOVERN-ROBERT DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR
EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The President may, subject to subsection
(j), direct the procurement of commodities and the provision
of financial and technical assistance to carry out--
(1) preschool and school feeding programs in foreign
countries to improve food security, reduce the incidence of
hunger, and improve literacy and primary education,
particularly with respect to girls; and
(2) maternal, infant, and child nutrition programs for
pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children who
are five years of age or younger.
(b) Eligible Commodities and Cost Items.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law--
(1) any agricultural commodity is eligible for distribution
under this section;
(2) as necessary to achieve the purposes of this section--
(A) funds may be used to pay the transportation costs
incurred in moving commodities (including prepositioned
commodities) provided under this section from the designated
points of entry or ports of entry of one or more recipient
countries to storage and distribution sites in these
countries, and associated storage and distribution costs;
(B) funds may be used to pay the costs of activities
conducted in the recipient countries by a nonprofit voluntary
organization, cooperative, or intergovernmental agency or
organization that would enhance the effectiveness of the
activities implemented by such entities under this section;
and
(C) funds may be provided to meet the allowable
administrative expenses of private voluntary organizations,
cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations which are
implementing activities under this section; and
(3) for the purposes of this section, the term
``agricultural commodities'' includes any agricultural
commodity, or the products thereof, produced in the United
States.
(c) General Authorities.--The President shall designate one
or more Federal agencies to--
(1) implement the program established under this section;
(2) ensure that the program established under this section
is consistent with the foreign policy and development
assistance objectives of the United States; and
(3) consider, in determining whether a country should
receive assistance under this section, whether the government
of the country is taking concrete steps to improve the
preschool and school systems in its country.
(d) Eligible Recipients.--Assistance may be provided under
this section to private voluntary organizations,
cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, governments
and their agencies, and other organizations.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a) the
President shall assure that procedures are established that--
(A) provide for the submission of proposals by eligible
recipients, each of which may include one or more recipient
countries, for commodities and other assistance under this
section;
(B) provide for eligible commodities and assistance on a
multi-year basis;
(C) ensure eligible recipients demonstrate the
organizational capacity and the ability to develop,
implement, monitor, report on, and provide accountability for
activities conducted under this section;
(D) provide for the expedited development, review, and
approval of proposals submitted in accordance with this
section;
(E) ensure monitoring and reporting by eligible recipients
on the use of commodities and other assistance provided under
this section; and
(F) allow for the sale or barter of commodities by eligible
recipients to acquire funds to implement activities that
improve the food security of women and children or otherwise
enhance the effectiveness of programs and activities
authorized under this section.
(2) Priorities for program funding.--In carrying out
paragraph (1) with respect to criteria for determining the
use of commodities and other assistance provided for programs
and activities authorized under this section, the
implementing agency may consider the ability of eligible
recipients to--
(A) identify and assess the needs of beneficiaries,
especially malnourished or undernourished mothers and their
children who are five years of age or younger, and school-age
children who are malnourished, undernourished, or do not
regularly attend school;
(B)(i) in the case of preschool and school-age children,
target low-income areas where children's enrollment and
attendance in school is low or girls' enrollment and
participation in preschool or school is low, and incorporate
developmental objectives for improving literacy and primary
education, particularly with respect to girls; and
(ii) in the case of programs to benefit mothers and
children who are five years of age or younger, coordinate
supplementary feeding and nutrition programs with existing or
newly-established maternal, infant, and children programs
that provide health-needs interventions, and which may
include maternal, prenatal, and postnatal and newborn care;
(C) involve indigenous institutions as well as local
communities and governments in the development and
implementation to foster local capacity building and
leadership; and
(D) carry out multiyear programs that foster local self-
sufficiency and ensure the longevity of recipient country
programs.
(f) Use of Food and Nutrition Service.--The Food and
Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture may
provide technical advice on the establishment of programs
under subsection (a)(1) and on their implementation in the
field in recipient countries.
(g) Multilateral Involvement.--The President is urged to
engage existing international food aid coordinating
mechanisms to ensure multilateral commitments to, and
participation in, programs like those supported under this
section. The President shall report annually to the Committee
on International Relations and the Committee on Agriculture
of the United States House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the United States
Senate on the commitments and activities of governments,
including the United States government, in the global effort
to reduce child hunger and increase school attendance.
(h) Private Sector Involvement.--The President is urged to
encourage the support and active involvement of the private
sector, foundations, and other individuals and organizations
in programs assisted under this section.
(i) Requirement To Safeguard Local Production and Usual
Marketing.--The requirement of section 403(a) of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1733(a) and 1733(h)) applies with respect to the
availability of commodities under this section.
(j) Funding.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011. Nothing in this
section shall be interpreted to preclude the use of
authorities in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act to carry out the ongoing Global Food for Education
Initiative.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Funds made available to carry
out the purposes of this section may be used to pay the
administrative expenses of any agency of the Federal
Government implementing or assisting in the implementation of
this section.

SEC. 313. STUDY ON FEE FOR SERVICES.

(a) Study.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide a report
to the designated congressional committees on the feasibility
of instituting a program which would charge and retain a fee
to cover the costs for providing persons with commercial
services performed abroad on matters within the authority of
the Department of Agriculture administered through the
Foreign Agriculture Service or any successor agency.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``designated
congressional committees'' means the Committee on Agriculture
and the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry of the Senate.

SEC. 314. NATIONAL EXPORT STRATEGY REPORT.

(a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
provide to the designated congressional committees a report
on the policies and programs that the Department of
Agriculture has undertaken to implement the National Export
Strategy Report. The report shall contain a description of
the effective coordination of these policies and programs
through all other appropriate Federal agencies participating
in the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and the steps
the Department of Agriculture is taking to reduce the level
of protectionism in agricultural trade, to foster market
growth, and to improve the commercial potential of markets in
both developed and developing countries for United States
agricultural commodities.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``designated
congressional committees''

[[Page H6210]]

means the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the
Senate.

TITLE IV--NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--Food Stamp Program

SEC. 401. SIMPLIFIED DEFINITION OF INCOME.

Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
(B) by inserting after ``premiums,'' the following:
``and (D) to the extent that any other educational loans on
which payment is deferred, grants, scholarships, fellowships,
veterans' educational benefits, and the like, are required to
be excluded under title XIX of the Social Security Act, the
state agency may exclude it under this subsection,'';
(2) by striking ``and (15)'' and inserting ``(15)'';
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following:
``, (16) any state complementary assistance program payments
that are excluded pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1931 of title XIX of the Social Security Act, and
(17) at the option of the State agency, any types of income
that the State agency does not consider when determining
eligibility for cash assistance under a program funded under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) or medical assistance under section 1931 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-1), except that this
paragraph shall not authorize a State agency to exclude
earned income, payments under title I, II, IV, X, XIV, or XVI
of the Social Security Act, or such other types of income
whose consideration the Secretary determines essential to
equitable determinations of eligibility and benefit levels
except to the extent that those types of income may be
excluded under other paragraphs of this subsection''.

SEC. 402. STANDARD DEDUCTION.

Section 5(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``of $134, $229, $189, $269, and $118'' and
inserting ``equal to 9.7 percent of the eligibility limit
established under section 5(c)(1) for fiscal year 2002 but
not more than 9.7 percent of the eligibility limit
established under section 5(c)(1) for a household of six for
fiscal year 2002 nor less than $134, $229, $189, $269, and
$118''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following:

``, except that the standard deduction for Guam shall be
determined with reference to 2 times the eligibility limits
under section 5(c)(1) for fiscal year 2002 for the 48
contiguous states and the District of Columbia''.

SEC. 403. TRANSITIONAL FOOD STAMPS FOR FAMILIES MOVING FROM
WELFARE.

(a) In General.--Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(s) Transitional Benefits Option.--
``(1) In general.--A State may provide transitional food
stamp benefits to a household that is no longer eligible to
receive cash assistance under a State program funded under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
``(2) Transitional benefits period.--Under paragraph (1), a
household may continue to receive food stamp benefits for a
period of not more than 6 months after the date on which cash
assistance is terminated.
``(3) Amount.--During the transitional benefits period
under paragraph (2), a household shall receive an amount
equal to the allotment received in the month immediately
preceding the date on which cash assistance is terminated. A
household receiving benefits under this subsection may apply
for recertification at any time during the transitional
benefit period. If a household reapplies, its allotment shall
be determined without regard to this subsection for all
subsequent months.
``(4) Determination of future eligibility.--In the final
month of the transitional benefits period under paragraph
(2), the State agency may--
``(A) require a household to cooperate in a redetermination
of eligibility to receive an authorization card; and
``(B) renew eligibility for a new certification period for
the household without regard to whether the previous
certification period has expired.
``(5) Limitation.--A household sanctioned under section 6,
or for a failure to perform an action required by Federal,
State, or local law relating to such cash assistance program,
shall not be eligible for transitional benefits under this
subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 3(c) of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The limits in this section may be
extended until the end of any transitional benefit period
established under section 11(s).''.
(2) Section 6(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2015(c)) is amended by striking ``No household'' and
inserting ``Except in a case in which a household is
receiving transitional benefits during the transitional
benefits period under section 11(s), no household''.

SEC. 404. QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMS.

(a) Targeted Quality Control System.--Section 16(c) of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``the
Secretary determines that a 95 percent statistical
probability exists that for the 3d consecutive year'' after
``year in which''; and
(B) in clause (i)(II)(aa)(bbb) by striking ``the national
performance measure for the fiscal year'' and inserting ``10
percent'';
(2) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``or claim'' and inserting ``claim''; and
(B) by inserting ``or performance under the measures
established under paragraph (10),'' after ``for payment
error,'';
(3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``to comply with
paragraph (10) and'' before ``to establish'';
(4) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (6), by inserting
``one percentage point more than'' after ``measure that shall
be''; and
(5) by inserting at the end the following:
``(10)(A) In addition to the measures established under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall measure the performance of
State agencies in each of the following regards--
``(i) compliance with the deadlines established under
paragraphs (3) and (9) of section 11(e); and
``(ii) the percentage of negative eligibility decisions
that are made correctly.
``(B) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
excellence bonus payments of $1,000,000 each to the 5 States
with the highest combined performance in the 2 measures in
subparagraph (A) and to the 5 States whose combined
performance under the 2 measures in subparagraph (A) most
improved in such fiscal year.
``(C) For any fiscal year in which the Secretary determines
that a 95 percent statistical probability exists that a State
agency's performance with respect to any of the 2 performance
measures established in subparagraph (A) is substantially
worse than a level the Secretary deems reasonable, other than
for good cause shown, the Secretary shall investigate that
State agency's administration of the food stamp program. If
this investigation determines that the State's administration
has been deficient, the Secretary shall require the State
agency to take prompt corrective action.''.
(b) Implementation.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(5) shall apply to all fiscal years beginning on or after
October 1, 2001, and ending before October 1, 2007. All other
amendments made by this section shall apply to all fiscal
years beginning on or after October 1, 1999.

SEC. 405. SIMPLIFIED APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY
DETERMINATION SYSTEMS.

Section 16 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(l) Simplification of Systems.--The Secretary shall
expend up to $10 million in each fiscal year to pay 100
percent of the costs of State agencies to develop and
implement simple application and eligibility determination
systems.''.

SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Employment and Training Programs.--Section 16(h)(1) of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(vii) by striking ``fiscal year
2002'' and inserting ``each of the fiscal years 2003 through
2011''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.
(b) Cost Allocation.--Section 16(k)(3) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.
(c) Cash Payment Pilot Projects.--Section 17(b)(1)(B)(vi)
of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026(b)(1)(B)(vi)) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(d) Outreach Demonstration Projects.--Section 17(i)(1)(A)
of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026(i)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``1992 through 2002'' and inserting
``2003 through 2011''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 18(a)(1) of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended
by striking ``1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003
through 2011''.
(f) Puerto Rico.--Section 19(a)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act
of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, the
amount equal to the amount required to be paid under this
subparagraph for the preceding fiscal year, as adjusted by
the percentage by which the thrifty food plan is adjusted
under section 3(o)(4) for the current fiscal year for which
the amount is determined under this clause;''.
(g) Territory of American Samoa.--Section 24 of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2033) is amended by striking
``1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2011''.
(h) Assistance for Community Food Projects.--Section
25(b)(2) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2034(b)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B)--

[[Page H6211]]

(A) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2001''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2011.''.
(i) Availability of Commodities for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program.--Section 27 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2036) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``2002
through 2011''; and
(B) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting
``$140,000,000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Use of Funds for Related Costs.--For each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Secretary shall use
$10,000,000 of the funds made available under subsection (a)
to pay for the direct and indirect costs of the States
related to the processing, storing, transporting, and
distributing to eligible recipient agencies of commodities
purchased by the Secretary under such subsection and
commodities secured from other sources, including commodities
secured by gleaning (as defined in section 111 of the Hunger
Prevention Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 612c note)).''.
(j) Special Effective Date.--The amendments made by
subsections (h) and (i) shall take effect of October 1, 2001.

Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution

SEC. 441. DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO SPECIAL
NUTRITION PROJECTS.

Section 1114(a) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7
U.S.C. 1431e) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 442. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7
U.S.C. 612c note) is amended--
(1) in section 4(a) by striking ``1991 through 2002'' and
inserting ``2003 through 2011''; and
(2) in subsections (a)(2) and (d)(2) of section 5 by
striking ``1991 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003 through
2011''.

SEC. 443. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE.

The 1st sentence of section 204(a)(1) of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1991 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003
through 2011'';
(2) by striking ``administrative''; and
(3) by inserting ``storage,'' after ``processing,''.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

SEC. 461. HUNGER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) Short Title; Findings.--
(1) Short title.--This section may be cited as the
``Congressional Hunger Fellows Act of 2001''.
(2) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(A) There is a critical need for compassionate individuals
who are committed to assisting people who suffer from hunger
as well as a need for such individuals to initiate and
administer solutions to the hunger problem.
(B) Bill Emerson, the distinguished late Representative
from the 8th District of Missouri, demonstrated his
commitment to solving the problem of hunger in a bipartisan
manner, his commitment to public service, and his great
affection for the institution and the ideals of the United
States Congress.
(C) George T. (Mickey) Leland, the distinguished late
Representative from the 18th District of Texas, demonstrated
his compassion for those in need, his high regard for public
service, and his lively exercise of political talents.
(D) The special concern that Mr. Emerson and Mr. Leland
demonstrated during their lives for the hungry and poor was
an inspiration for others to work toward the goals of
equality and justice for all.
(E) These 2 outstanding leaders maintained a special bond
of friendship regardless of political affiliation and worked
together to encourage future leaders to recognize and provide
service to others, and therefore it is especially appropriate
to honor the memory of Mr. Emerson and Mr. Leland by creating
a fellowship program to develop and train the future leaders
of the United States to pursue careers in humanitarian
service.
(b) Establishment.--There is established as an independent
entity of the legislative branch of the United States
Government the Congressional Hunger Fellows Program
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Program'').
(c) Board of Trustees.--
(1) In general.--The Program shall be subject to the
supervision and direction of a Board of Trustees.
(2) Members of the board of trustees.--
(A) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 6 voting
members appointed under clause (i) and 1 nonvoting ex officio
member designated in clause (ii) as follows:
(i) Voting members.--(I) The Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall appoint 2 members.
(II) The minority leader of the House of Representatives
shall appoint 1 member.
(III) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 2
members.
(IV) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 1
member.
(ii) Nonvoting member.--The Executive Director of the
program shall serve as a nonvoting ex officio member of the
Board.
(B) Terms.--Members of the Board shall serve a term of 4
years.
(C) Vacancy.--
(i) Authority of board.--A vacancy in the membership of the
Board does not affect the power of the remaining members to
carry out this section.
(ii) Appointment of successors.--A vacancy in the
membership of the Board shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made.
(iii) Incomplete term.--If a member of the Board does not
serve the full term applicable to the member, the individual
appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be appointed
for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of the
individual.
(D) Chairperson.--As the first order of business of the
first meeting of the Board, the members shall elect a
Chairperson.
(E) Compensation.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), members of the
Board may not receive compensation for service on the Board.
(ii) Travel.--Members of the Board may be reimbursed for
travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in
carrying out the duties of the program.
(3) Duties.--
(A) Bylaws.--
(i) Establishment.--The Board shall establish such bylaws
and other regulations as may be appropriate to enable the
Board to carry out this section, including the duties
described in this paragraph.
(ii) Contents.--Such bylaws and other regulations shall
include provisions--

(I) for appropriate fiscal control, funds accountability,
and operating principles;
(II) to prevent any conflict of interest, or the appearance
of any conflict of interest, in the procurement and
employment actions taken by the Board or by any officer or
employee of the Board and in the selection and placement of
individuals in the fellowships developed under the program;
(III) for the resolution of a tie vote of the members of
the Board; and
(IV) for authorization of travel for members of the Board.

(iii) Transmittal to congress.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the first meeting of the Board, the
Chairperson of the Board shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a copy of such bylaws.
(B) Budget.--For each fiscal year the program is in
operation, the Board shall determine a budget for the program
for that fiscal year. All spending by the program shall be
pursuant to such budget unless a change is approved by the
Board.
(C) Process for selection and placement of fellows.--The
Board shall review and approve the process established by the
Executive Director for the selection and placement of
individuals in the fellowships developed under the program.
(D) Allocation of funds to fellowships.--The Board of
Trustees shall determine the priority of the programs to be
carried out under this section and the amount of funds to be
allocated for the Emerson and Leland fellowships.
(d) Purposes; Authority of Program.--
(1) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are--
(A) to encourage future leaders of the United States to
pursue careers in humanitarian service, to recognize the
needs of people who are hungry and poor, and to provide
assistance and compassion for those in need;
(B) to increase awareness of the importance of public
service; and
(C) to provide training and development opportunities for
such leaders through placement in programs operated by
appropriate organizations or entities.
(2) Authority.--The program is authorized to develop such
fellowships to carry out the purposes of this section,
including the fellowships described in paragraph (3).
(3) Fellowships.--
(A) In general.--The program shall establish and carry out
the Bill Emerson Hunger Fellowship and the Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowship.
(B) Curriculum.--
(i) In general.--The fellowships established under
subparagraph (A) shall provide experience and training to
develop the skills and understanding necessary to improve the
humanitarian conditions and the lives of individuals who
suffer from hunger, including--

(I) training in direct service to the hungry in conjunction
with community-based organizations through a program of field
placement; and
(II) experience in policy development through placement in
a governmental entity or nonprofit organization.

(ii) Focus of bill emerson hunger fellowship.--The Bill
Emerson Hunger Fellowship shall address hunger and other
humanitarian needs in the United States.
(iii) Focus of mickey leland hunger fellowship.--The Mickey
Leland Hunger Fellowship shall address international hunger
and other humanitarian needs.
(iv) Workplan.--To carry out clause (i) and to assist in
the evaluation of the fellowships under paragraph (4), the
program shall, for each fellow, approve a work plan that
identifies the target objectives for the fellow in the
fellowship, including specific duties and responsibilities
related to those objectives.
(C) Period of fellowship.--
(i) Emerson fellow.--A Bill Emerson Hunger Fellowship
awarded under this paragraph shall be for no more than 1
year.
(ii) Leland fellow.--A Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowship
awarded under this paragraph shall be for no more than 2
years. Not less than one year of the fellowship shall be

[[Page H6212]]

dedicated to fulfilling the requirement of subparagraph
(B)(i)(I).
(D) Selection of fellows.--
(i) In general.--A fellowship shall be awarded pursuant to
a nationwide competition established by the program.
(ii) Qualification.--A successful applicant shall be an
individual who has demonstrated--

(I) an intent to pursue a career in humanitarian service
and outstanding potential for such a career;
(II) a commitment to social change;
(III) leadership potential or actual leadership experience;
(IV) diverse life experience;
(V) proficient writing and speaking skills;
(VI) an ability to live in poor or diverse communities; and
(VII) such other attributes as determined to be appropriate
by the Board.

(iii) Amount of award.--

(I) In general.--Each individual awarded a fellowship under
this paragraph shall receive a living allowance and, subject
to subclause (II), an end-of-service award as determined by
the program.
(II) Requirement for successful completion of fellowship.--
Each individual awarded a fellowship under this paragraph
shall be entitled to receive an end-of-service award at an
appropriate rate for each month of satisfactory service as
determined by the Executive Director.

(iv) Recognition of fellowship award.--

(I) Emerson fellow.--An individual awarded a fellowship
from the Bill Emerson Hunger Fellowship shall be known as an
``Emerson Fellow''.
(II) Leland fellow.--An individual awarded a fellowship
from the Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowship shall be known as a
``Leland Fellow''.

(4) Evaluation.--The program shall conduct periodic
evaluations of the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger
Fellowships. Such evaluations shall include the following:
(A) An assessment of the successful completion of the work
plan of the fellow.
(B) An assessment of the impact of the fellowship on the
fellows.
(C) An assessment of the accomplishment of the purposes of
the program.
(D) An assessment of the impact of the fellow on the
community.
(e) Trust Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established the Congressional
Hunger Fellows Trust Fund (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ``Fund'') in the Treasury of the United
States, consisting of amounts appropriated to the Fund under
subsection (i), amounts credited to it under paragraph (3),
and amounts received under subsection (g)(3)(A).
(2) Investment of funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the full amount of the Fund. Each investment
shall be made in an interest bearing obligation of the United
States or an obligation guaranteed as to principal and
interest by the United States that, as determined by the
Secretary in consultation with the Board, has a maturity
suitable for the Fund.
(3) Return on investment.--Except as provided in subsection
(f)(2), the Secretary of the Treasury shall credit to the
Fund the interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or
redemption of, obligations held in the Fund.
(f) Expenditures; Audits.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the program from the amounts described in
subsection (e)(3) and subsection (g)(3)(A) such sums as the
Board determines are necessary to enable the program to carry
out the provisions of this section.
(2) Limitation.--The Secretary may not transfer to the
program the amounts appropriated to the Fund under subsection
(i).
(3) Use of funds.--Funds transferred to the program under
paragraph (1) shall be used for the following purposes:
(A) Stipends for fellows.--To provide for a living
allowance for the fellows.
(B) Travel of fellows.--To defray the costs of
transportation of the fellows to the fellowship placement
sites.
(C) Insurance.--To defray the costs of appropriate
insurance of the fellows, the program, and the Board.
(D) Training of fellows.--To defray the costs of preservice
and midservice education and training of fellows.
(E) Support staff.--Staff described in subsection (g).
(F) Awards.--End-of-service awards under subsection
(d)(3)(D)(iii)(II).
(G) Additional approved uses.--For such other purposes that
the Board determines appropriate to carry out the program.
(4) Audit by gao.--
(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an annual audit of the accounts of the
program.
(B) Books.--The program shall make available to the
Comptroller General all books, accounts, financial records,
reports, files, and all other papers, things, or property
belonging to or in use by the program and necessary to
facilitate such audit.
(C) Report to congress.--The Comptroller General shall
submit a copy of the results of each such audit to the
appropriate congressional committees.
(g) Staff; Powers of Program.--
(1) Executive director.--
(A) In general.--The Board shall appoint an Executive
Director of the program who shall administer the program. The
Executive Director shall carry out such other functions
consistent with the provisions of this section as the Board
shall prescribe.
(B) Restriction.--The Executive Director may not serve as
Chairperson of the Board.
(C) Compensation.--The Executive Director shall be paid at
a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay payable for level
V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) Staff.--
(A) In general.--With the approval of a majority of the
Board, the Executive Director may appoint and fix the pay of
additional personnel as the Executive Director considers
necessary and appropriate to carry out the functions of the
provisions of this section.
(B) Compensation.--An individual appointed under
subparagraph (A) shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the
rate of basic pay payable for level GS-15 of the General
Schedule.
(3) Powers.--In order to carry out the provisions of this
section, the program may perform the following functions:
(A) Gifts.--The program may solicit, accept, use, and
dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of services or
property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding
or facilitating the work of the program. Gifts, bequests, or
devises of money and proceeds from sales of other property
received as gifts, bequests, or devises shall be deposited in
the Fund and shall be available for disbursement upon order
of the Board.
(B) Experts and consultants.--The program may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of
basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(C) Contract authority.--The program may contract, with the
approval of a majority of the members of the Board, with and
compensate Government and private agencies or persons without
regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
(D) Other necessary expenditures.--The program shall make
such other expenditures which the program considers necessary
to carry out the provisions of this section, but excluding
project development.
(h) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year, the
Board shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on the activities of the program carried
out during the previous fiscal year, and shall include the
following:
(1) An analysis of the evaluations conducted under
subsection (d)(4) (relating to evaluations of the Emerson and
Leland fellowships and accomplishment of the program
purposes) during that fiscal year.
(2) A statement of the total amount of funds attributable
to gifts received by the program in that fiscal year (as
authorized under subsection (g)(3)(A)), and the total amount
of such funds that were expended to carry out the program
that fiscal year.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out the provisions of
this section.
(j) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

SEC. 462. GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, the amendments
made by this title shall take effect on October 1, 2002.

TITLE V--CREDIT

SEC. 501. ELIGIBILITY OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FOR FARM
OWNERSHIP LOANS, FARM OPERATING LOANS, AND
EMERGENCY LOANS.

(a) Sections 302(a), 311(a), and 321(a) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922(a), 1941(a),
and 1961(a)) are each amended by striking ``and joint
operations'' each place it appears and inserting ``joint
operations, and limited liability companies''.
(b) Section 321(a) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is
amended by striking ``or joint operations'' each place it
appears and inserting ``joint operations, or limited
liability companies''.

SEC. 502. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH
BORROWERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED
ASSISTANCE.

During the period beginning January 1, 2002, and ending
December 31, 2006, section 319(b) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1949(b)) shall have no
force or effect.

SEC. 503. ADMINISTRATION OF CERTIFIED LENDERS AND PREFERRED
CERTIFIED LENDERS PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (9) as
paragraphs (3) through (10), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) administer the loan guarantee program under section
339(c) through central offices established in States or in
multi-State areas;''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 331(c) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1981(c)) is amended by striking ``(b)(5)'' and
inserting ``(b)(6)''.

[[Page H6213]]

SEC. 504. SIMPLIFIED LOAN GUARANTEE APPLICATION AVAILABLE FOR
LOANS OF GREATER AMOUNTS.

Section 333A(g)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983a(g)(1)) is amended by striking
``$50,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.

SEC. 505. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT THAT SECRETARY REQUIRE
COUNTY COMMITTEES TO CERTIFY IN WRITING THAT
CERTAIN LOAN REVIEWS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED.

Section 333 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (2)
through (4), respectively.

SEC. 506. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE PERCENTAGE OF LOAN GUARANTEED
IF BORROWER INCOME IS INSUFFICIENT TO SERVICE
DEBT.

Section 339 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1989) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(4)(A), by inserting ``, except that
the Secretary may guarantee such lesser percentage as the
Secretary determines appropriate of such a loan if the income
of the borrower is less than the income necessary to meet the
requirements of subsection (b)'' before the period; and
(2) in subsection (d)(4)(A), by inserting ``, except that
the Secretary may guarantee such lesser percentage as the
Secretary determines appropriate of such a loan if the income
of the borrower is less than the income necessary to meet the
requirements of subsection (b)'' before the semicolon.

SEC. 507. TIMING OF LOAN ASSESSMENTS.

Section 360(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006b(a)) is amended by striking
``After an applicant is determined eligible for assistance
under this title by the appropriate county committee
established pursuant to section 332, the'' and inserting
``The''.

SEC. 508. MAKING AND SERVICING OF LOANS BY PERSONNEL OF
STATE, COUNTY, OR AREA COMMITTEES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981-2008j) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 376. MAKING AND SERVICING OF LOANS BY PERSONNEL OF
STATE, COUNTY, OR AREA COMMITTEES.

``The Secretary shall employ personnel of a State, county
or area committee established under section 8(b)(5) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C
590h(b)(5)) to make and service loans under this title to the
extent the personnel have been trained to do so.''.
(b) Inapplicability of Finality Rule.--Section 281(a)(1) of
the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 7001(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, except
functions performed pursuant to section 376 of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act'' before the
period.

SEC. 509. ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF STATE, COUNTY, OR AREA
COMMITTEE FOR LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES.

Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1981-2008j) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 377. ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES OF STATE, COUNTY, OR
AREA COMMITTEE FOR LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES.

``The Secretary shall not prohibit an employee of a State,
county or area committee established under section 8(b)(5) of
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C.
590h(b)(5)) or an employee of the Department of Agriculture
from obtaining a loan or loan guarantee under subtitle A, B
or C of this title if an office of the Department of
Agriculture other than the office in which the employee is
located determines that the employee is otherwise eligible
for the loan or loan guarantee.''.

SEC. 510. EMERGENCY LOANS IN RESPONSE TO AN ECONOMIC
EMERGENCY RESULTING FROM QUARANTINES AND
SHARPLY INCREASING ENERGY COSTS.

(a) Loan Authority.--Section 321(a) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is
amended--
(1) in each of the 1st and 3rd sentences--
(A) by striking ``a natural disaster in the United States
or by'' and inserting ``a quarantine imposed by the Secretary
under the Plant Protection Act or the animal quarantine laws
(as defined in section 2509 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990), an economic emergency
resulting from sharply increasing energy costs as described
in section 329(b), a natural disaster in the United States,
or''; and
(B) by inserting ``Robert T. Stafford'' before ``Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act''; and
(2) in the 4th sentence--
(A) by striking ``a natural disaster'' and inserting ``such
a quarantine, economic emergency, or natural disaster''; and
(B) by striking ``by such natural disaster'' and inserting
``by such quarantine, economic emergency, or natural
disaster''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 323 of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1963) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``quarantine,'' before ``natural
disaster''; and
(2) by inserting ``referred to in section 321(a),
including, notwithstanding any other provision of this title,
an economic emergency resulting from sharply increasing
energy costs as described in section 329(b)'' after
``emergency''.
(c) Sharply Increasing Energy Costs.--Section 329 of such
Act (7 U.S.C. 1969) is amended--
(1) by striking all that precedes ``Secretary shall'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 329. LOSS CONDITIONS.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the''; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
``(b) Loss Resulting From Sharply Increasing Energy
Costs.--The Secretary shall make financial assistance under
this subtitle available to any applicant seeking assistance
based on an income loss resulting from sharply increasing
energy costs referred to in section 323 if--
``(1) the price of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel,
natural gas, propane, or other equivalent fuel during any 3-
month period is at least 50 percent greater than the average
price of the same form of energy during the preceding 5
years, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(2) the income loss of the applicant is directly related
to expenses incurred to prevent livestock mortality, the
degradation of a perishable agricultural commodity, or damage
to a field crop.''.
(d) Maximum Amount of Loan.--Section 324(a) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1964(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) in the case of a loan made in response to a
quarantine referred to in section 321, exceeds $500,000; or
``(4) in the case of a loan made in response to an economic
emergency referred to in section 321, exceeds $200,000.''.

SEC. 511. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICING OF
FARMER PROGRAM LOANS.

Section 331(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981(d)) is amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``Temporary''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 512. AUTHORIZATION FOR LOANS.

Section 346(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``not more than the following amounts:'' and all that follows
and inserting ``such sums as may be necessary.''.

SEC. 513. RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR DIRECT OPERATING LOANS FOR
BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

Section 346(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III)) is
amended by striking ``2000 through 2002'' and inserting
``2002 through 2011''.

SEC. 514. EXTENSION OF INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM.

Section 351(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1999(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 515. INCREASE IN DURATION OF LOANS UNDER DOWN PAYMENT
LOAN PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 310E(b)(3) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1935(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``10'' and inserting ``15''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 310E(c)(3)(B) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1935(c)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``10-year'' and
inserting ``15-year''.

SEC. 516. HORSE BREEDER LOANS.

(a) Definition of Horse Breeder.--In this section, the term
``horse breeder'' means a person that, as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, derives more than 70 percent of the
income of the person from the business of breeding, boarding,
raising, training, or selling horses, during the shorter of--
(1) the 5-year period ending on January 1, 2001; or
(2) the period the person has been engaged in the business.
(b) Loan Authorization.--The Secretary shall make a loan to
an eligible horse breeder to assist the breeder for losses
suffered as a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome.
(c) Eligibility.--A horse breeder shall be eligible for a
loan under this section if the Secretary determines that, as
a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome--
(1) during the period beginning January 1, 2000, and ending
October 1, 2000, or during the period beginning January 1,
2001, and ending October 1, 2001--
(A) 30 percent or more of the mares owned by the breeder
failed to conceive, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise failed
to produce a live healthy foal; or
(B) 30 percent or more of the mares boarded on a farm
owned, operated, or leased by the breeder failed to conceive,
miscarried, aborted, or otherwise failed to produce a live
healthy foal;
(2) during the period beginning January 1, 2000, and ending
on September 30, 2002, the breeder was unable to meet the
financial obligations, or pay the ordinary and necessary
expenses, of the breeder incurred in connection with
breeding, boarding, raising, training, or selling horses; and
(3) the breeder is not able to obtain sufficient credit
elsewhere (within the meaning of section 321(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act).

[[Page H6214]]

(d) Amount.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall determine the amount of a loan to be made to a horse
breeder under this section, on the basis of the amount of
losses suffered by the breeder, and the financial needs of
the breeder, as a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome.
(2) Maximum amount.--The amount of a loan made under this
section shall not exceed $500,000.
(e) Term.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the term for
repayment of a loan made to a horse breeder under this
section shall be determined by the Secretary based on the
ability of the breeder to repay the loan.
(2) Maximum term.--The term of a loan made under this
section shall not exceed 15 years.
(f) Interest Rate.--Interest shall be payable on a loan
made under this section, at the rate prescribed under section
324(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
(g) Security.--Security shall be required on a loan made
under this section, in accordance with section 324(d) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
(h) Application.--To be eligible to obtain a loan under
this section, a horse breeder shall submit to the Secretary
an application for the loan not later than September 30,
2002.
(i) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this section
using funds available for emergency loans under subtitle C of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
(j) Termination.--The authority provided by this section
shall terminate on September 30, 2003.

SEC. 517. SUNSET OF DIRECT LOAN PROGRAMS UNDER THE
CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT.

(a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981-2008j) is amended by
inserting after section 344 the following:

``SEC. 345. SUNSET OF DIRECT LOAN PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
beginning 5 years after the date of the enactment of this
section, the Secretary may not make a direct loan under
section 302 or 311.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
authority to make direct loans to youths, qualified beginning
farmers or ranchers, or members of socially disadvantaged
groups.
``(c) No Effect on Existing Contracts.--Subsection (a)
shall not be construed to permit the violation of any
contract entered into before the 5-year period described in
subsection (a).''.
(b) Evaluations of Direct and Guaranteed Loan Programs.--
(1) Studies.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct 2
studies of the direct and guaranteed loan progams under
sections 302 and 311 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, each of which shall include an examination
of the number, average principal amount, and delinquency and
default rates of loans provided or guaranteed during the
period covered by the study.
(2) Periods covered.--
(A) First study.--1 study under paragraph (1) shall cover
the 1-year period that begins 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this section.
(B) Second study.--1 study under paragraph (1) shall cover
the 1-year period that begins 3 years after such date of
enactment.
(3) Reports to the congress.--At the end of the period
covered by a study under this subsection, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall submit to the Congress a report that
contains an evaluation of the results of the study, including
an analysis of the effectiveness of loan programs referred to
in paragraph (1) in meeting the credit needs of agricultural
producers in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner.

SEC. 518. DEFINITION OF DEBT FORGIVENESS.

Section 343(a)(12)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(12)(B)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(B) Exceptions.--The term `debt forgiveness' does not
include--
``(i) consolidation, rescheduling, reamortization, or
deferral of a loan; or
``(ii) any write-down provided as a part of a resolution of
a discrimination complaint against the Secretary.''.

SEC. 519. LOAN ELIGIBILITY FOR BORROWERS WITH PRIOR DEBT
FORGIVENESS.

Section 373(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(b)(1)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
``(A) the Secretary may not make a loan under this title to
a borrower who, on more than 2 occasions, received debt
forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this title;
and
``(B) the Secretary may not guarantee a loan under this
title to a borrower who, on more than 3 occasions, received
debt forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this
title.''.

SEC. 520. ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR SOCIALLY
DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

The last sentence of section 355(c)(2) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(c)(2)) is
amended to read as follows: ``Any funds reserved and
allocated under this paragraph but not used within a State
shall, to the extent necessary to satisfy pending
applications under this title, be available for use by
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in other States,
as determined by the Secretary, and any remaining funds shall
be reallocated within the State.''.

SEC. 521. HORSES CONSIDERED TO BE LIVESTOCK UNDER THE
CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT.

Section 343 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1991) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Livestock Includes Horses.--The term `livestock'
includes horses.''.

TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 601. FUNDING FOR RURAL LOCAL TELEVISION BROADCAST SIGNAL
LOAN GUARANTEES.

Section 1011(a) of the Launching Our Communities' Access to
Local Television Act of 2000 (title X of H.R. 5548, as
enacted by section 1(a)(2) of Public Law 106-553) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, a total of
$200,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall be available during fiscal years 2002 through 2006,
without fiscal year limitation, for loan guarantees under
this title.''.

SEC. 602. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

Section 231(a) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Establishment and purposes.--In each of fiscal years
2002 through 2011, the Secretary shall use $50,000,000 of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to award
competitive grants--
``(A) to eligible independent producers (as determined by
the Secretary) of value-added agricultural commodities and
products of agricultural commodities to assist an eligible
producer--
``(i) to develop a business plan for viable marketing
opportunities for a value-added agricultural commodity or
product of an agricultural commodity; or
``(ii) to develop strategies for the ventures that are
intended to create marketing opportunities for the producers;
and
``(B) to public bodies, institutions of higher learning,
and trade associations to assist such entities--
``(i) to develop a business plan for viable marketing
opportunities in emerging markets for a value-added
agricultural commodity or product of an agricultural
commodity; or
``(ii) to develop strategies for the ventures that are
intended to create marketing opportunities in emerging
markets for the producers.'';
(2) by striking ``producer'' each place it appears
thereafter and inserting ``grantee''; and
(3) in the heading for paragraph (3), by striking
``Producer'' and inserting ``Grantee''.

SEC. 603. AGRICULTURE INNOVATION CENTER DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to carry
out a demonstration program under which agricultural
producers are provided--
(1) technical assistance, including engineering services,
applied research, scale production, and similar services to
enable the producers to establish businesses for further
processing of agricultural products;
(2) marketing, market development, and business planning;
and
(3) overall organizational, outreach, and development
assistance to increase the viability, growth, and
sustainability of value-added agricultural businesses.
(b) Nature of Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in
this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall--
(1) make grants to eligible applicants for the purposes of
enabling the applicants to obtain the assistance described in
subsection (a); and
(2) provide assistance to eligible applicants through the
research and technical services of the Department of
Agriculture.
(c) Eligibility Requirements.--
(1) In general.--An applicant shall be eligible for a grant
and assistance described in subsection (b) to establish an
Agriculture Innovation Center if--
(A) the applicant--
(i) has provided services similar to those described in
subsection (a); or
(ii) shows the capability of providing the services;
(B) the application of the applicant for the grant and
assistance sets forth a plan, in accordance with regulations
which shall be prescribed by the Secretary, outlining support
of the applicant in the agricultural community, the technical
and other expertise of the applicant, and the goals of the
applicant for increasing and improving the ability of local
producers to develop markets and processes for value-added
agricultural products;
(C) the applicant demonstrates that resources (in cash or
in kind) of definite value are available, or have been
committed to be made available, to the applicant, to increase
and improve the ability of local producers to develop markets
and processes for value-added agricultural products; and
(D) the applicant meets the requirement of paragraph (2).
(2) Board of directors.--The requirement of this paragraph
is that the applicant shall have a board of directors
comprised of representatives of the following groups:

[[Page H6215]]

(A) The 2 general agricultural organizations with the
greatest number of members in the State in which the
applicant is located.
(B) The Department of Agriculture or similar State
organization or department, for the State.
(C) Organizations representing the 4 highest grossing
commodities produced in the State, according to annual gross
cash sales.
(d) Grants and Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (g), the Secretary
shall make annual grants to eligible applicants under this
section, each of which grants shall not exceed the lesser
of--
(A) $1,000,000; or
(B) twice the dollar value of the resources (in cash or in
kind) that the applicant has demonstrated are available, or
have been committed to be made available, to the applicant in
accordance with subsection (c)(1)(C).
(2) Initial limitation.--In the first year of the
demonstration program under this section, the Secretary shall
make grants under this section, on a competitive basis, to
not more than 5 eligible applicants.
(3) Expansion of demonstration program.--In the second year
of the demonstration program under this section, the
Secretary may make grants under this section to not more than
10 eligible applicants, in addition to any entities to which
grants are made under paragraph (2) for such year.
(4) State limitation.--In the first 3 years of the
demonstration program under this section, the Secretary shall
not make an Agricultural Innovation Center Demonstration
Program grant under this section to more than 1 entity in a
single State.
(e) Use of Funds.--An entity to which a grant is made under
this section may use the grant only for the following
purposes, but only to the extent that the use is not
described in section 231(d) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000:
(1) Applied research.
(2) Consulting services.
(3) Hiring of employees, at the discretion of the board of
directors of the entity.
(4) The making of matching grants, each of which shall be
not more than $5,000, to agricultural producers, so long as
the aggregate amount of all such matching grants shall be not
more than $50,000.
(5) Legal services.
(f) Rule of Interpretation.--This section shall not be
construed to prevent a recipient of a grant under this
section from collaborating with any other institution with
respect to activities conducted using the grant.
(g) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount made available
under section 231(a)(1) of the Agricultural Risk Protection
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note), the
Secretary shall use to carry out this section--
(1) not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
(2) not less than $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2003 and 2004.
(h) Report on Best Practices.--
(1) Effects on the agricultural sector.--The Secretary
shall utilize $300,000 per year of the funds made available
pursuant to this section to support research at any
university into the effects of value-added projects on
agricultural producers and the commodity markets. The
research should systematically examine possible effects on
demand for agricultural commodities, market prices, farm
income, and Federal outlays on commodity programs using
linked, long-term, global projections of the agricultural
sector.
(2) Department of agriculture.--Not later than 3 years
after the first 10 grants are made under this section, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives a
written report on the effectiveness of the demonstration
program conducted under this section at improving the
production of value-added agricultural products and on the
effects of the program on the economic viability of the
producers, which shall include the best practices and
innovations found at each of the Agriculture Innovation
Centers established under the demonstration program under
this section, and detail the number and type of agricultural
projects assisted, and the type of assistance provided, under
this section.

SEC. 604. FUNDING OF COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Funding.--In each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011,
the Secretary of Agriculture shall use $30,000,000 of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
section 306A of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1926a).
(b) Extension of Program.--Section 306A(i) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1926a(i)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.
(c) Miscellaneous Amendments.--Section 306A of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1926a) is amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``EMERGENCY'';
(2) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``after'' and inserting ``when''; and
(B) by inserting ``is imminent'' after ``communities''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``shall--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``shall be a public or private
nonprofit entity.''.

SEC. 605. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR THE FINANCING OF THE PURCHASE
OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS.

Section 4 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 904) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
``(b) Loan Guarantees for the Financing of the Purchase of
Renewable Energy Systems.--The Secretary may provide a loan
guarantee, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary
deems appropriate, for the purpose of financing the purchase
of a renewable energy system, including a wind energy system
and anaerobic digestors for the purpose of energy generation,
by any person or individual who is a farmer, a rancher, or an
owner of a small business (as defined by the Secretary) that
is located in a rural area (as defined by the Secretary). In
providing guarantees under this subsection, the Secretary
shall give priority to loans used primarily for power
generation on a farm, ranch, or small business (as so
defined).''.

SEC. 606. LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
SYSTEMS.

Section 310B(a)(3) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(3)) is amended by inserting
``and other renewable energy systems including wind energy
systems and anaerobic digestors for the purpose of energy
generation'' after ``solar energy systems''.

SEC. 607. RURAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

Section 306(a)(11)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)(D)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 608. GRANTS FOR WATER SYSTEMS FOR RURAL AND NATIVE
VILLAGES IN ALASKA.

Section 306D(d)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926d(d)(1)) is amended by striking
``and 2002'' and inserting ``through 2011''.

SEC. 609. RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

Section 310B(e)(9) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(9)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 610. NATIONAL RESERVE ACCOUNT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST
FUND.

Section 381E(e)(3)(F) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009d(e)(3)(F)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and inserting ``each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2011''.

SEC. 611. RURAL VENTURE CAPITAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

Section 381O(b)(3) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009n(b)(3)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 612. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON CERTAIN LOANS FOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT.

Section 310B(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)) is amended by striking
``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$100,000,000''.

SEC. 613. PILOT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
STRATEGIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

(a) Development.--
(1) Selection of states.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in
this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall select
10 States in which to implement strategic regional
development plans developed under this subsection.
(2) Grants.--
(A) Authority.--
(i) In general.--From the funds made available to carry out
this subsection, the Secretary shall make a matching grant to
1 or more entities in each State selected under subsection
(a), to develop a strategic regional development plan that
provides for rural economic development in a region in the
State in which the entity is located.
(ii) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, the
Secretary shall give priority to entities that represent a
regional coalition of community-based planning, development,
governmental, and business organizations.
(B) Terms of match.--In order for an entity to be eligible
for a matching grant under this subsection, the entity shall
make a commitment to the Secretary to provide funds for the
development of a strategic regional development plan of the
kind referred to in subparagraph (A) in an amount that is not
less than the amount of the matching grant.
(C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make a grant under
this subsection in an amount that exceeds $150,000.
(3) Funding.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use $2,000,000 of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation in each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this subsection.
(B) Availability.--Funds made available pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall remain available without fiscal year
limitation.
(b) Strategic Planning Implementation.--
(1) The Secretary shall use the authorities provided in the
provisions of law specified in section 793(c)(1)(A)(ii) of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to
implement the strategic regional development plans developed
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Funding.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use $13,000,000 of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation in each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this subsection.

[[Page H6216]]

(B) Availability.--Funds made available pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall remain available without fiscal year
limitation.
(c) Use of Funds.--The amounts made available under
subsections (a) and (b) may be used as the Secretary deems
appropriate to carry out any provision of this section.

SEC. 614. GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO FINANCE THE
CONSTRUCTION, REFURBISHING, AND SERVICING OF
INDIVIDUALLY-OWNED HOUSEHOLD WATER WELL SYSTEMS
IN RURAL AREAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LOW OR
MODERATE INCOMES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922-1949) is amended by
inserting after section 306D the following:

``SEC. 306E. GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO FINANCE THE
CONSTRUCTION, REFURBISHING, AND SERVICING OF
INDIVIDUALLY-OWNED HOUSEHOLD WATER WELL SYSTEMS
IN RURAL AREAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LOW OR
MODERATE INCOMES.

``(a) Definition of Eligible Individual.--In this section,
the term `eligible individual' means an individual who is a
member of a household, the combined income of whose members
for the most recent 12-month period for which the information
is available, is not more than 100 percent of the median
nonmetropolitan household income for the State or territory
in which the individual resides, according to the most recent
decennial census of the United States.
``(b) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to private
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of assisting eligible
individuals in obtaining financing for the construction,
refurbishing, and servicing of individual household water
well systems in rural areas that are owned (or to be owned)
by the eligible individuals.
``(c) Use of Funds.--A grant made under this section may
be--
``(1) used, or invested to provide income to be used, to
carry out subsection (b); and
``(2) used to pay administrative expenses associated with
providing the assistance described in subsection (b).
``(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants
under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to an
applicant that has substantial expertise and experience in
promoting the safe and productive use of individually-owned
household water well systems and ground water.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
takes effect on October 1, 2001.

SEC. 615. NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP.

Subtitle E of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 2009-2009n) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 381P. NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP.

``(a) Rural Area Defined.--In this section, the term `rural
area' means such areas as the Secretary may determine.
``(b) Establishment.--There is established a National Rural
Development Partnership (in this section referred to as the
`Partnership'), which shall be composed of--
``(1) the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee
established in accordance with subsection (c); and
``(2) State rural development councils established in
accordance with subsection (d).
``(c) National Rural Development Coordinating Committee.--
``(1) Composition.--The National Rural Development
Coordinating Committee (in this section referred to as the
`Coordinating Committee') may be composed of--
``(A) representatives of all Federal departments and
agencies with policies and programs that affect or benefit
rural areas;
``(B) representatives of national associations of State,
regional, local, and tribal governments and intergovernmental
and multi-jurisdictional agencies and organizations;
``(C) national public interest groups; and
``(D) other national nonprofit organizations that elect to
participate in the activities of the Coordinating Committee.
``(2) Functions.--The Coordinating Committee may--
``(A) provide support for the work of the State rural
development councils established in accordance with
subsection (d); and
``(B) develop and facilitate strategies to reduce or
eliminate conflicting or duplicative administrative and
regulatory impediments confronting rural areas.
``(d) State Rural Development Councils.--
``(1) Composition.--A State rural development council may--
``(A) be composed of representatives of Federal, State,
local, and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations,
the private sector, and other entities committed to rural
advancement; and
``(B) have a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory membership
that is broad and representative of the economic, social, and
political diversity of the State.
``(2) Functions.--A State rural development council may--
``(A) facilitate collaboration among Federal, State, local,
and tribal governments and the private and non-profit sectors
in the planning and implementation of programs and policies
that affect the rural areas of the State, and to do so in
such a way that provides the greatest degree of flexibility
and innovation in responding to the unique needs of the State
and the rural areas; and
``(B) in conjunction with the Coordinating Committee,
develop and facilitate strategies to reduce or eliminate
conflicting or duplicative administrative and regulatory
impediments confronting the rural areas of the State.
``(e) Administration of the Partnership.--The Secretary may
provide for any additional support staff to the Partnership
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
duties of the Partnership.
``(f) Termination.--The authority provided by this section
shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the date of
the enactment of this section.''.

SEC. 616. ELIGIBILITY OF RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES, RURAL
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES, AND CHAMPION
COMMUNITIES FOR DIRECT AND GUARANTEED LOANS FOR
ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES.

Section 306(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
after the 1st sentence the following: ``The Secretary may
also make or insure loans to communities that have been
designated as rural empowerment zones or rural enterprise
communities pursuant to part I of subchapter U of chapter 1
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as rural enterprise
communities pursuant to section 766 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, or as champion communities
(as determined by the Secretary), to provide for the
installation or improvement of essential community facilities
including necessary related equipment, and to furnish
financial assistance or other aid in planning projects for
such purposes.''.

SEC. 617. GRANTS TO TRAIN FARM WORKERS IN NEW TECHNOLOGIES
AND TO TRAIN FARM WORKERS IN SPECIALIZED SKILLS
NECESSARY FOR HIGHER VALUE CROPS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a
grant to a nonprofit organization with the capacity to train
farm workers, or to a consortium of non-profit organizations,
agribusinesses, State and local governments, agricultural
labor organizations, and community-based organizations with
that capacity.
(b) Use of Funds.--An entity to which a grant is made under
this section shall use the grant to train farm workers to use
new technologies and develop specialized skills for
agricultural development.
(c) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For
grants under this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture not more than
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.

SEC. 618. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR THE PURCHASE OF STOCK IN A
FARMER COOPERATIVE SEEKING TO MODERNIZE OR
EXPAND.

Section 310B(g)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(g)(2)) is amended by striking
``start-up'' and all that follows and inserting ``capital
stock of a farmer cooperative established for an agricultural
purpose.''.

SEC. 619. INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND SUBORDINATED UNSECURED DEBT
REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY OF FARMER-OWNED COOPERATIVE FOR
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED LOAN.

Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1932) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Intangible Assets and Subordinated Unsecured Debt
Required to be Considered in Determining Eligibility of
Farmer-Owned Cooperative for Business and Industry Guaranteed
Loan.--In determining whether a cooperative organization
owned by farmers is eligible for a guaranteed loan under
subsection (a)(1), the Secretary may consider the value of
the intangible assets and subordinated unsecured debt of the
cooperative organization.''.

SEC. 620. BAN ON LIMITING ELIGIBILITY OF FARMER COOPERATIVE
FOR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY LOAN GUARANTEE BASED
ON POPULATION OF AREA IN WHICH COOPERATIVE IS
LOCATED.

Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1932) is further amended by adding at the end
of the following:
``(i) Special Rules Applicable to Farmer Cooperatives under
the Business and Industry Loan Program.--In determining
whether a cooperative organization owned by farmers is
eligible for a guaranteed loan under subsection (a)(1), the
Secretary shall not apply any lending restriction based on
population to the area in which the cooperative organization
is located.''.

SEC. 621. RURAL WATER AND WASTE FACILITY GRANTS.

Section 306(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``aggregating not to exceed $590,000,000 in any fiscal
year''.

SEC. 622. RURAL WATER CIRCUIT RIDER PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a national rural water and wastewater circuit rider
grant program that shall be modeled after the National Rural
Water Association Rural Water Circuit Rider Program that
receives funding from the Rural Utilities Service.
(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out subsection (a), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $15,000,000 for
each fiscal year.

[[Page H6217]]

SEC. 623. RURAL WATER GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a national grassroots source water protection
program that will utilize the on-site technical assistance
capabilities of State rural water associations that are
operating wellhead or ground water protection programs in
each State.
(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out subsection (a), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $5,000,000 for
each fiscal year.

TITLE VII--RESEARCH AND RELATED MATTERS

Subtitle A--Extensions

SEC. 700. MARKET EXPANSION RESEARCH.

Section 1436(b)(3)(C) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7
U.S.C. 1632(b)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``1990'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 701. NATIONAL RURAL INFORMATION CENTER CLEARINGHOUSE.

Section 2381(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 3125b(e)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 702. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES EDUCATION.

Section 1417(l) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3152(l))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 703. POLICY RESEARCH CENTERS.

Section 1419A(d) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3155(d))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 704. HUMAN NUTRITION INTERVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION
RESEARCH PROGRAM.

Section 1424(d) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174(d))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 705. PILOT RESEARCH PROGRAM TO COMBINE MEDICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

Section 1424A(d) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3174a(d)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 706. NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM.

Section 1425(c)(3) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3175(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 707. CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH
PROGRAMS.

Section 1433(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3195(a))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 708. APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON NATIONAL OR REGIONAL
PROBLEMS.

Section 1434(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3196(a))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 709. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCES
FACILITIES AT 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES,
INCLUDING TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY.

Section 1447(b) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3222b(b)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 710. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTENNIAL CENTERS
AT 1890 LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

Sections 1448(a)(1) and (f) of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3222c(a)(1) and (f)) are amended by striking ``2002''
each place it appears and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 711. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

Section 1455(c) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3241(c))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 712. COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

Section 1459A(c) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3292b(c)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 713. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.

Subsections (a) and (b) of section 1463 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3311(a) and (b)) are amended by striking
``2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 714. EXTENSION SERVICE.

Section 1464 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3312) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 715. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE CROPS.

Section 1473D(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3319d(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 716. AQUACULTURE RESEARCH FACILITIES.

The first sentence of section 1477 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3324) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 717. RANGELAND RESEARCH.

Section 1483(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3336(a))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 718. NATIONAL GENETICS RESOURCES PROGRAM.

Section 1635(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5844(b)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 719. HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION INITIATIVES.

Section 1672(h) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(h)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 720. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
INITIATIVE.

Section 1672A(g) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925a(g)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 721. AGRICULTURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM.

Section 1673(h) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5926(h)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 722. ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
COMMERCIALIZATION REVOLVING FUND.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1664(g)(1) of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5908(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.
(b) Capitalization.--Section 1664(g)(2) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 5908(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 723. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR FARMERS WITH
DISABILITIES.

Section 1680(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5933(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 724. PARTNERSHIPS FOR HIGH-VALUE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT
QUALITY RESEARCH.

Section 402(g) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7622(g)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 725. BIOBASED PRODUCTS.

(a) Pilot Project.--Section 404(e)(2) of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7624(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2011''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(h) of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 7624(h)) is amended by striking ``2002''
and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 726. INTEGRATED RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.

Section 406(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626(e)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 727. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS.

(a) Generally.--Section 535(b)(1) of the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note)
is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 535(c) of
such Act is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 728. 1994 INSTITUTION RESEARCH GRANTS.

Section 536(c) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 729. ENDOWMENT FOR 1994 INSTITUTIONS.

The first sentence of section 533(b) of the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note)
is amended by striking ``$4,600,000'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``such sums as are necessary
to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 1996
through 2011.''.

SEC. 730. PRECISION AGRICULTURE.

Section 403(i) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7623(i)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 731. THOMAS JEFFERSON INITIATIVE FOR CROP
DIVERSIFICATION.

Section 405(h) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7625(h)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 732. SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH REGARDING DISEASES OF WHEAT,
TRITICALE, AND BARLEY CAUSED BY FUSARIUM
GRAMINEARUM OR BY TILLETIA INDICA.

Section 408(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7628(e)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 733. OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY.

Section 614(f) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7653(f)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 734. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION,
EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD.

Section 1408(h) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123(h))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 735. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF
ALCOHOLS AND INDUSTRIAL HYDROCARBONS FROM
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND FOREST PRODUCTS.

Section 1419(d) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching

[[Page H6218]]

Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3154(d)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 736. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(7 U.S.C. 7624 note) is amended--
(1) in section 307(f), by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2011''; and
(2) in section 310, by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 737. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS RESEARCH
FACILITIES.

Section 6(a) of the Research Facilities Act (7 U.S.C.
390d(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

SEC. 738. COMPETITIVE, SPECIAL, AND FACILITIES RESEARCH
GRANTS NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

Section 2(b)(10) of the Competitive, Special, and
Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(10)) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 739. FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FACILITIES
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 1431 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198; 99 Stat. 1556) is amended by striking ``2002''
and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 740. COTTON CLASSIFICATION SERVICES.

The first sentence of section 3a of the Act of March 3,
1927 (commonly known as the ``Cotton Statistics and Estimates
Act''; 7 U.S.C. 473a) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 740A. CRITICAL AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS RESEARCH.

Section 16(a) of the Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7
U.S.C. 178n(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.

Subtitle B--Modifications

SEC. 741. EQUITY IN EDUCATIONAL LAND-GRANT STATUS ACT OF
1994.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 534(a)(1)(A)
of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 301 note) is amended by striking ``$50,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000''.
(b) Withdrawals and Expenditures.--Section 533(c)(4)(A) of
such Act is amended by striking ``section 390(3)'' and all
that follows through ``1998)'' and inserting ``section
2(a)(7) of the Tribally Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978)''.
(c) Accreditation.--Section 533(a)(3) of such Act is
amended by striking ``under sections 534 and 535'' and
inserting ``under sections 534, 535, and 536''.
(d) 1994 Institutions.--Section 532 of such Act is amended
by striking paragraphs (1) through (30) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Bay Mills Community College.
``(2) Blackfeet Community College.
``(3) Cankdeska Cikana Community College.
``(4) College of Menominee Nation.
``(5) Crownpoint Institute of Technology.
``(6) D-Q University.
``(7) Dine College.
``(8) Dull Knife Memorial College.
``(9) Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College.
``(10) Fort Belknap College.
``(11) Fort Berthold Community College.
``(12) Fort Peck Community College.
``(13) Haskell Indian Nations University.
``(14) Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development.
``(15) Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College.
``(16) Leech Lake Tribal College.
``(17) Little Big Horn College.
``(18) Little Priest Tribal College.
``(19) Nebraska Indian Community College.
``(20) Northwest Indian College.
``(21) Oglala Lakota College.
``(22) Salish Kootenai College.
``(23) Sinte Gleska University.
``(24) Sisseton Wahpeton Community College.
``(25) Si Tanka/Huron University.
``(26) Sitting Bull College.
``(27) Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.
``(28) Stone Child College.
``(29) Turtle Mountain Community College.
``(30) United Tribes Technical College.''.

SEC. 742. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND
TEACHING POLICY ACT OF 1977.

Section 1404(4) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103(4))
is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``, or''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``(F) is one of the
1994 Institutions (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994).''.

SEC. 743. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION
REFORM ACT OF 1998.

(a) Priority Mission Areas.--Section 401(c)(2) of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) alternative fuels and renewable energy sources.''.
(b) Precision Agriculture.--Section 403 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7623) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)(F), by inserting ``(including
improved use of energy inputs)'' after ``farm production
efficiencies''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Improve on farm energy use efficiencies.''.
(c) Thomas Jefferson Initiative for Crop Diversification.--
Section 405(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7625(a)) is amended by
striking ``and marketing'' and inserting ``, marketing, and
efficient use''.
(d) Coordinated Program of Research, Extension, and
Education To Improve Viability of Small- and Medium-Size
Dairy, Livestock, and Poultry Operations.--Section 407(b)(3)
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7627(b)(3)) is amended by inserting
``(including improved use of energy inputs)'' after ``poultry
systems that increase efficiencies''.
(e) Support for Research Regarding Diseases of Wheat,
Triticale, and Barley Caused by Fusarium Graminearum or By
Tilletia Indica.--
(1) Research grant authorized.--Section 408(a) of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7628(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Research Grant Authorized.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may make grants to consortia of land-grant
colleges and universities to enhance the ability of the
consortia to carry out multi-State research projects aimed at
understanding and combating diseases of wheat, triticale, and
barley caused by Fusarium graminearum and related fungi
(referred to in this section as `wheat scab') or by Tilletia
indica and related fungi (referred to in this section as
`Karnal bunt').''.
(2) Research components.--Section 408(b) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 7628(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or of Karnal bunt,''
after ``epidemiology of wheat scab'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, triticale,'' after
``occurring in wheat'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Karnal bunt'' after
``wheat scab'';
(D) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``and barley for the
presence of'' and inserting ``, triticale, and barley for the
presence of Karnal bunt or of'';
(E) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``and barley infected
with wheat scab'' and inserting ``, triticale, and barley
infected with wheat scab or with Karnal bunt'';
(F) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ``wheat scab'' after
``to render'';
(G) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and barley to wheat
scab'' and inserting ``, triticale, and barley to wheat scab
and to Karnal bunt''; and
(H) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by inserting ``and Karnal bunt'' after ``wheat scab'';
and
(ii) by inserting ``, triticale,'' after ``resistant
wheat''.
(3) Communications networks.--Section 408(c) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 7628(c)) is amended by inserting ``or Karnal bunt''
after ``wheat scab''.
(4) Technical amendments.--(A) The section heading for
section 408 of such Act is amended by striking ``AND BARLEY
CAUSED BY FUSARIUM GRAMINEARUM'' and inserting ``, TRITICALE,
AND BARLEY CAUSED BY FUSARIUM GRAMINEARUM OR BY TILLETIA
INDICA''.
(B) The table of sections for such Act is amended by
striking ``and barley caused by fusarium graminearum'' in the
item relating to section 408 and inserting ``, triticale, and
barley caused by Fusarium graminearum or by Tilletia
indica''.
(f) Program to Control Johne's Disease.--Title IV of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 409. BOVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
coordination with State veterinarians and other appropriate
State animal health professionals, may establish a program to
conduct research, testing, and evaluation of programs for the
control and management of Johne's disease in livestock.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2011.''.

SEC. 744. FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF
1990.

(a) Agricultural Genome Initiative.--Section 1671(b) of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5924(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``pathogens and'' before
``diseases causing economic hardship'';
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraph:
``(7) reducing the economic impact of plant pathogens on
commercially important crop plants; and''.
(b) High-Priority Research and Extension Initiatives.--
Section 1672(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade

[[Page H6219]]

Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraphs:
``(25) Research to protect the united states food supply
and agriculture from bioterrorism.--Research grants may be
made under this section for the purpose of developing
technologies, which support the capability to deal with the
threat of agricultural bioterrorism.
``(26) Wind erosion research and extension.--Research and
extension grants may be made under this section for the
purpose of validating wind erosion models.
``(27) Crop loss research and extension.--Research and
extension grants may be made under this section for the
purpose of validating crop loss models.
``(28) Land use management research and extension.--
Research and extension grants may be made under this section
for the purposes of evaluating the environmental benefits of
land use management tools such as those provided in the
Farmland Protection Program.
``(29) Water and air quality research and extension.--
Research and extension grants may be made under this section
for the purpose of better understanding agricultural impacts
to air and water quality and means to address them.
``(30) Revenue and insurance tools research and
extension.--Research and extension grants may be made under
this section for the purposes of better understanding the
impact of revenue and insurance tools on farm income.
``(31) Agrotourism research and extension.--Research and
extension grants may be made under this section for the
purpose of better understanding the economic, environmental,
and food systems impacts on agrotourism.
``(32) Harvesting productivity for fruits and vegetables.--
Research and extension grants may be made under this section
for the purpose of improving harvesting productivity for
fruits and vegetables (including citrus), including the
development of mechanical harvesting technologies and
effective, economical, and safe abscission compounds.
``(33) Nitrogen-fixation by plants.--Research and extension
grants may be made under this section for the purpose of
enhancing the nitrogen-fixing ability and efficiency of
legumes, developing new varieties of legumes that fix
nitrogen more efficiently, and developing new varieties of
other commercially important crops that potentially are able
to fix nitrogen.
``(34) Agricultural marketing.--Extension grants may be
made under this section for the purpose of providing
education materials, information, and outreach programs
regarding commodity and livestock marketing strategies for
agricultural producers and for cooperatives and other
marketers of any agricultural commodity, including livestock.
``(35) Environment and private lands research and
extension.--Research and extension grants may be made under
this section for the purpose of researching the use of
computer models to aid in assessment of best management
practices on a watershed basis, working with government,
industry, and private landowners to help craft industry-led
solutions to identified environmental issues, researching and
monitoring water, air, or soil environmental quality to aid
in the development of new approaches to local environmental
concerns, and working with local, State, and federal
officials to help craft effective environmental solutions
that respect private property rights and agricultural
production realities.
``(36) Livestock disease research and extension.--Research
and extension grants may be made under this section for the
purpose of identifying possible livestock disease threats,
educating the public regarding livestock disease threats,
training persons to deal with such threats, and conducting
related research.
``(37) Plant gene expression.--Research and development
grants may be made under this section for the purpose of
plant gene expression research to accelerate the application
of basic plant genomic science to the development and testing
of new varieties of enhanced food crops, crops that can be
used as renewable energy sources, and other alternative uses
of agricultural crops.''.

SEC. 745. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND
TEACHING POLICY ACT OF 1977.

(a) National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education,
and Economic Advisory Board.--Section 1408 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (R) through (DD) as
subparagraphs (S) through (EE), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (Q) the following new
subparagraph:
``(R) 1 member representing a nonland grant college or
university with a historic commitment to research in the food
and agricultural sciences.'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``and land-grant
colleges and universities'' and inserting ``, land-grant
colleges and universities, and the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1), inserting ``consult with any
appropriate agencies of the Department of Agriculture and''
after ``the Advisory Board shall''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``30 members'' and
inserting ``31 members''.
(b) Grants for Research on Production and Marketing of
Alcohols and Industrial Hydrocarbons from Agricultural
Commodities and Forest Products.--Section 1419 of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3154) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``and animal fats
and oils'' after ``industrial oilseed crops''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``or triglycerides''
after ``other industrial hydrocarbons''.
(c) FAS Overseas Intern Program.--Section 1458(a) of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3291(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) establish a program, to be coordinated by the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
and the Foreign Agricultural Service, to place interns from
United States colleges and universities at Foreign
Agricultural Service field offices overseas.''.

SEC. 746. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(7 U.S.C. 7624 note) is amended--
(1) in section 302(3), by inserting ``or biodiesel'' after
``such as ethanol'';
(2) in section 303(3), by inserting ``animal byproducts,''
after ``fibers,''; and
(3) in section 306(b)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (J) as
subparagraphs (F) through (K), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) an individual affiliated with a livestock trade
association;''.

SEC. 747. BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH.

Section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5921) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 1668. BIOTECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH.

``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
``(1) to authorize and support environmental assessment
research to help identify and analyze environmental effects
of biotechnology; and
``(2) to authorize research to help regulators develop
long-term policies concerning the introduction of such
technology.
``(b) Grant Program.-- The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a grant program within the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service and the
Agricultural Research Service to provide the necessary
funding for environmental assessment research concerning the
introduction of genetically engineered plants and animals
into the environment.
``(c) Types of Research.-- Types of research for which
grants may be made under this section shall include the
following:
``(1) Research designed to identify and develop appropriate
management practices to minimize physical and biological
risks associated with genetically engineered animals and
plants once they are introduced into the environment.
``(2) Research designed to develop methods to monitor the
dispersal of genetically engineered animals and plants.
``(3) Research designed to further existing knowledge with
respect to the characteristics, rates and methods of gene
transfer that may occur between genetically engineered plants
and animals and related wild and agricultural organisms.
``(4) Environmental assessment research designed to provide
analysis, which compares the relative impacts of plants and
animals modified through genetic engineering to other types
of production systems.
``(5) Other areas of research designed to further the
purposes of this section.
``(d) Eligibility Requirements.--Grants under this section
shall be--
``(1) made on the basis of the quality of the proposed
research project; and
``(2) available to any public or private research or
educational institution or organization.
``(e) Consultation.-- In considering specific areas of
research for funding under this section, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall consult with the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board.
``(f) Program Coordination.-- The Secretary of Agriculture
shall coordinate research funded under this section with the
Office of Research and Development of the Environmental
Protection Agency in order to avoid duplication of research
activities.

[[Page H6220]]

``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.-- There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as necessary to carry out this section.
``(2) Withholdings from biotechnology outlays.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall withhold from outlays of the
Department of Agriculture for research on biotechnology, as
defined and determined by the Secretary, at least one percent
of such amount for the purpose of making grants under this
section for research on biotechnology risk assessment. Except
that, funding from this authorization should be collected and
applied to the maximum extent practicable to risk assessment
research on all categories identified as biotechnology by the
Secretary.''.

SEC. 748. COMPETITIVE, SPECIAL, AND FACILITIES RESEARCH
GRANTS.

Section 2(a) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities
Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Determination of high priority research.--Research
priorities shall be determined by the Secretary on an annual
basis, taking into account input as gathered by the Secretary
through the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board.''.

SEC. 749. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT FOR RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES OF 1890 INSTITUTIONS.

Section 1449 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222d)
is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Matching Formula.--For each of fiscal years 2003
through 2011, the State shall provide matching funds from
non-Federal sources. Such matching funds shall be for an
amount equal to not less than 60 percent of the formula funds
to be distributed to the eligible institution, and shall
increase by 10 percent each fiscal year thereafter until
fiscal year 2007.''; and
(2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Waiver Authority.--Notwithstanding subsection (f),
the Secretary may waive the matching funds requirement under
subsection (c) above the 50 percent level for fiscal years
2003 through 2011 for an eligible institution of a State if
the Secretary determines that the State will be unlikely to
satisfy the matching requirement.''.

SEC. 749A. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT FOR RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES FOR THE UNITED STATES
TERRITORIES.

(a) Research Matching Requirement.--Section 3(d)(4) of the
Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361c(d)(4)) is amended by
striking ``the same matching funds'' and all that follows
through the end of the sentence and inserting ``matching
funds requirements from non-Federal sources for fiscal years
2003 through 2011 in an amount equal to not less than 50
percent of the formula funds to be distributed to the
Territory. The Secretary may waive the matching funds
requirements for a Territory for any of the fiscal years 2003
through 2011 if the Secretary determines that the Territory
will be unlikely to satisfy the matching funds requirement
for that fiscal year.''.
(b) Extension Matching Requirement.--Section 3(e)(4) of the
Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(e)(4)) is amended by striking
``the same matching funds'' and all that follows through the
end of the sentence and inserting ``matching funds
requirements from non-Federal sources for fiscal years 2003
through 2011 in an amount equal to not less than 50 percent
of the formula funds to be distributed to the Territory. The
Secretary may waive the matching funds requirements for a
Territory for any of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011 if
the Secretary determines that the Territory will be unlikely
to satisfy the matching funds requirement for that fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 750. INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS.

(a) Funding.--Section 401(b)(1) of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7621(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Total amount to be transferred.--On October 1, 2003,
and each October 1 thereafter through September 30, 2011, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall deposit funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation into the Account. The total amount of
Commodity Credit Corporation funds deposited into the Account
under this subparagraph shall equal $1,160,000,000.
``(B) Equal amounts.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the amounts deposited into the Account pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall be deposited in equal amounts for each
fiscal year.
``(C) Availability of funds.--Amounts deposited into the
Account pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall remain available
until expended.''.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Section 401(f)(6) of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621(f)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Availability of funds.--Funds made available under
this section to the Secretary prior to October 1, 2003, for
grants under this section shall be available to the Secretary
for a 2-year period.''.

SEC. 751. CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH.

Section 221 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-224; 114 Stat. 407) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Of the amount'' and
all that follows through ``to provide'' and inserting ``To
the extent funds are made available for this purpose, the
Secretary shall provide'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``under subsection (a)''
and inserting ``for this section''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2002 through
2011 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
section.''

SEC. 752. DEFINITION OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES.

Section 2(3) of the Research Facilities Act (7 U.S.C.
390(2)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Food and agricultural sciences.--The term `food and
agricultural sciences' has the meaning given that term in
section 1404(8) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3103(8)).''.

SEC. 753. FEDERAL EXTENSION SERVICE.

Section 3(b)(3) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3))
is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``such
sums as are necessary''.

SEC. 754. POLICY RESEARCH CENTERS.

Section 1419A(c)(3) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3155(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``collect and analyze
data'' and inserting ``collect, analyze, and disseminate
data''.

Subtitle C--Related Matters

SEC. 761. RESIDENT INSTRUCTION AT LAND-GRANT COLLEGES IN
UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.

(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to promote
and strengthen higher education in the food and agricultural
sciences at agricultural and mechanical colleges located in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the
United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of
Palau (hereinafter referred to in this section as ``eligible
institutions'') by formulating and administering programs to
enhance teaching programs in agriculture, natural resources,
forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, and
disciplines closely allied to the food and agriculture
production and delivery system.
(b) Grants.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall make
competitive grants to those eligible institutions having a
demonstrable capacity to carry out the teaching of food and
agricultural sciences.
(c) Use of Grant Funds.--Grants made under subsection (b)
shall be used to--
(1) strengthen institutional educational capacities,
including libraries, curriculum, faculty, scientific
instrumentation, instruction delivery systems, and student
recruitment and retention, in order to respond to identified
State, regional, national, or international education needs
in the food and agricultural sciences;
(2) attract and support undergraduate and graduate students
in order to educate them in identified areas of national need
to the food and agriculture sciences;
(3) facilitate cooperative initiatives between two or more
eligible institutions or between eligible institutions and
units of State Government, organizational in the private
sector, to maximize the development and use of resources such
as faculty, facilities, and equipment to improve food and
agricultural sciences teaching programs; and
(4) conduct undergraduate scholarship programs to assist in
meeting national needs for training food and agricultural
scientists.
(d) Grant Requirements.--
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that each
eligible institution, prior to receiving grant funds under
subsection (b), shall have a significant demonstrable
commitment to higher educations programs in the food and
agricultural sciences and to each specific subject area for
which grant funds under this subsection are to be used.
(2) The Secretary of Agriculture may require that any grant
awarded under this section contain provisions that require
funds to be targeted to meet the needs identified in section
1402 of the National Agriculture Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this section.

SEC. 762. DECLARATION OF EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY AND
RESULTING AUTHORITIES.

(a) Review of Payment of Compensation.--Section 415(e) of
the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7715(e)) is amended by
inserting before the final period the following: ``or review
by any officer of the Government other than the Secretary or
the designee of the Secretary''.
(b) Review of Certain Decisions.--
(1) Plant protection act.--Section 442 of the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7772) is amended by adding at the
end following new subsection:
``(f) Secretarial Discretion.--The action of any officer,
employee, or agent of the Secretary in carrying out this
section, including determining the amount of and making any
payment authorized to be made under this section, shall not
be subject to review by any

[[Page H6221]]

officer of the Government other than the Secretary or the
designee of the Secretary.''.
(2) Other plant and animal pest and disease laws.--Section
11 of the Act of May 29, 1884 (21 U.S.C. 114a; commonly known
as the ``Animal Industry Act'') and the first section of the
Act of September 25, 1981 (7 U.S.C. 147b), are each amended
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The action
of any officer, employee, or agent of the Secretary in
carrying out this section, including determining the amount
of and making any payment authorized to be made under this
section, shall not be subject to review by any officer of the
Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the
Secretary.''.
(c) Methyl Bromide.--The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 418 the
following new section:

``SEC. 419. METHYL BROMIDE.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, upon request of State,
local, or tribal authorities, shall determine whether methyl
bromide treatments or applications required by State, local,
or tribal authorities to prevent the introduction,
establishment, or spread of plant pests (including diseases)
or noxious weeds should be authorized as an official control
or official requirement.
``(b) Administration.--
``(1) Timeline for determination.--The Secretary shall make
the determination required by subsection (a) not later than
90 days after receiving the request for such a determination.
``(2) Regulations.--The promulgation of regulations for and
the administration of this section shall be made without
regard to--
``(A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
``(B) 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
``(C) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the `Paperwork Reduction Act').
``(c) Registry.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall publish,
and thereafter maintain, a registry of State, local, and
tribal requirements authorized by the Secretary under this
section.''.

Subtitle D--Repeal of Certain Activities and Authorities

SEC. 771. FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH INFORMATION OFFICE AND
NATIONAL CONFERENCE.

(a) Repeal.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 615 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7654(b) and (c)) are repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Generally.--Section 615 of such Act is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``AND NATIONAL
CONFERENCE'';
(B) by striking ``(a) Food Safety Research Information
Office.--'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively, and moving the
margins 2 ems to the left;
(D) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by
redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as paragraphs (1) and
(2), respectively, and moving the margins 2 ems to the left;
and
(E) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``this subsection'' and inserting ``this section''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for such Act
is amended by striking ``and National Conference'' in the
item relating to section 615.

SEC. 772. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES UNDER SHEEP PROMOTION,
RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION ACT OF 1994.

Section 617 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-185; 112 Stat.
607) is repealed.

SEC. 773. NATIONAL GENETIC RESOURCES PROGRAM.

Section 1634 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5843) is repealed.

SEC. 774. NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD ON AGRICULTURAL WEATHER.

(a) Repeal.--Section 1639 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5853) is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1640(b) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5854(b)) is amended by striking ``take into'' and all that
follows through ``Weather and''.

SEC. 775. AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH IRELAND.

Section 1420 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198; 99 Stat. 1551) is repealed.

SEC. 776. PESTICIDE RESISTANCE STUDY.

Section 1437 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198; 99 Stat. 1558) is repealed.

SEC. 777. EXPANSION OF EDUCATION STUDY.

Section 1438 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1985 (Public
Law 99-198; 99 Stat. 1559) is repealed.

SEC. 778. SUPPORT FOR ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Repeal.--Section 1412 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3127) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1413(c) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 3128(c)) is amended by striking ``section 1412 of this
title and''.

SEC. 779. TASK FORCE ON 10-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN FOR
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

(a) Repeal.--Section 4 of the Research Facilities Act (7
U.S.C. 390b) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2 of such Act (7 U.S.C.
390) is amended by striking paragraph (5).

Subtitle E--Agriculture Facility Protection

SEC. 790. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMAL OR AGRICULTURAL
ENTERPRISES, RESEARCH FACILITIES, AND OTHER
ENTITIES.

(a) Definitions.--The Research Facilities Act (7 U.S.C. 390
et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 6 as section 7; and
(2) by inserting after section 5 the following new section:

``SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMAL OR AGRICULTURAL
ENTERPRISES, RESEARCH FACILITIES, AND OTHER
ENTITIES AGAINST DISRUPTION.

``(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
``(1) Animal or agricultural enterprise.--The term `animal
or agricultural enterprise' means any of the following:
``(A) A commercial, governmental, or academic enterprise
that uses animals, plants, or other biological materials for
food or fiber production, breeding, processing, research, or
testing.
``(B) A zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or other entity that
exhibits or uses animals, plants, or other biological
materials for educational or entertainment purposes.
``(C) A fair or similar event intended to advance
agricultural arts and sciences.
``(D) A facility managed or occupied by an association,
federation, foundation, council, or other group or entity of
food or fiber producers, processors, or agricultural or
biomedical researchers intended to advance agricultural or
biomedical arts and sciences.
``(2) Economic damage.--The term `economic damage' means
the replacement of the following:
``(A) The cost of lost or damaged property (including all
real and personal property) of an animal or agricultural
enterprise.
``(B) The cost of repeating an interrupted or invalidated
experiment.
``(C) The loss of revenue (including costs related to
business recovery) directly related to the disruption of an
animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(D) The cost of the tuition and expenses of any student
to complete an academic program that was disrupted, or to
complete a replacement program, when the tuition and expenses
are incurred as a result of the damage or loss of the
property of an animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(3) Property of an animal or agricultural enterprise.--
The term `property of an animal or agricultural enterprise'
means real and personal property of or used by any of the
following:
``(A) An animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(B) An employee of an animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(C) A student attending an academic animal or
agricultural enterprise.
``(4) Disruption.--The term `disruption' does not include
any lawful disruption that results from lawful public,
governmental, or animal or agricultural enterprise employee
reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal or
agricultural enterprise.
``(b) Violation.--A person may not recklessly, knowingly,
or intentionally cause, or contribute to, the disruption of
the functioning of an animal or agricultural enterprise by
damaging or causing the loss of any property of the animal or
agricultural enterprise that results in economic damage, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Assessment of Civil Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may impose on any person
that the Secretary determines violates subsection (b) a civil
penalty in an amount determined under paragraphs (2) and (3).
The civil penalty may be assessed only on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
``(2) Recovery of department costs.--The civil penalty
assessed by the Secretary against a person for a violation of
subsection (b) shall be not less than the total cost incurred
by the Secretary for investigation of the violation,
conducting any hearing regarding the violation, and assessing
the civil penalty.
``(3) Recovery of economic damage.--In addition to the
amount determined under paragraph (2), the amount of the
civil penalty shall include an amount not less than the total
cost (or, in the case of knowing or intentional disruption,
not less than 150 percent of the total cost) of the economic
damage incurred by the animal or agricultural enterprise, any
employee of the animal or agricultural enterprise, or any
student attending an academic animal or agricultural
enterprise as a result of the damage or loss of the property
of an animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(d) Identification.--The Secretary shall identify for
each civil penalty assessed under subsection (c), the portion
of the amount of the civil penalty that represents the
recovery of Department costs and the portion that represents
the recovery of economic losses.
``(e) Other Factors in Determining Penalty.-- In
determining the amount of a civil penalty under subsection
(c), the Secretary shall consider the following:

[[Page H6222]]

``(1) The nature, circumstance, extent, and gravity of the
violation or violations.
``(2) The ability of the injured animal or agricultural
enterprise to continue to operate, costs incurred by the
animal or agricultural enterprise to recover lost business,
and the effect of the violation on earnings of employees of
the animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(3) The interruptions experienced by students attending
an academic animal or agricultural enterprise.
``(4) Whether the violator has previously violated
subsection (a).
``(5) The violator's degree of culpability.
``(f) Fund to Assist Victims of Disruption.--
``(1) Fund established.--There is established in the
Treasury a fund which shall consist of that portion of each
civil penalty collected under subsection (c) that represents
the recovery of economic damages.
``(2) Use of amounts in fund.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall use amounts in the fund to compensate animal or
agricultural enterprises, employees of an animal or
agricultural enterprise, and student attending an academic
animal or agricultural enterprise for economic losses
incurred as a result of the disruption of the functioning of
an animal or agricultural enterprise in violation of
subsection (b).''.

TITLE VIII--FORESTRY INITIATIVES

SEC. 801. REPEAL OF FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM AND
STEWARDSHIP INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended
by striking section 4 (16 U.S.C. 2103) and section 6 (16
U.S.C. 2103b).

SEC. 802. ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREST LAND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) There is a growing dependence on private nonindustrial
forest lands to supply the necessary market commodities and
nonmarket values, such as habitat for fish and wildlife,
aesthetics, outdoor recreation opportunities, and other
forest resources, required by a growing population.
(2) There is a strong demand for expanded assistance
programs for owners of nonindustrial private forest land
since the majority of the wood supply of the United States
comes from nonindustrial private forest land.
(3) The soil, carbon stores, water and air quality of the
United States can be maintained and improved through good
stewardship of nonindustrial private forest lands.
(4) The products and services resulting from stewardship of
nonindustrial private forest lands provide income and
employment that contribute to the economic health and
diversity of rural communities.
(5) Wildfires threaten human lives, property, forests, and
other resources, and Federal and State cooperation in forest
fire prevention and control has proven effective and
valuable, in that properly managed forest stands are less
susceptible to catastrophic fire, as dramatized by the
catastrophic fire seasons of 1998 and 2000.
(6) Owners of private nonindustrial forest lands are being
faced with increased pressure to convert their forestland to
development and other uses.
(7) Complex, long-rotation forest investments, including
sustainable hardwood management, are often the most difficult
commitment for small, nonindustrial private forest landowners
and, thus, should receive equal consideration under cost-
share programs.
(8) The investment of one Federal dollar in State and
private forestry programs is estimated to leverage $9 on
average from State, local, and private sources.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
strengthen the commitment of the Department of Agriculture to
sustainable forestry and to establish a coordinated and
cooperative Federal, State, and local sustainable forest
program for the establishment, management, maintenance,
enhancement, and restoration of forests on nonindustrial
private forest lands in the United States.
(c) Forest Land Enhancement Program.--The Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by inserting after
section 3 (16 U.S.C. 2102) the following new section 4:

``SEC. 4. FOREST LAND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) Establishment; purpose.--The Secretary shall
establish a Forest Land Enhancement Program (in this section
referred to as the `Program') for the purpose of providing
financial, technical, educational, and related assistance to
State foresters to encourage the long-term sustainability of
nonindustrial private forest lands in the United States by
assisting the owners of such lands in more actively managing
their forest and related resources by utilizing existing
State, Federal, and private sector resource management
expertise, financial assistance, and educational programs.
``(2) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out the
Program within, and administer the Program through, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
``(3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall implement the
Program in coordination with State foresters.
``(b) Program Objectives.--In implementing the Program, the
Secretary shall target resources to achieve the following
objectives:
``(1) Investment in practices to establish, restore,
protect, manage, maintain, and enhance the health and
productivity of the nonindustrial private forest lands in the
United States for timber, habitat for flora and fauna, water
quality, and wetlands.
``(2) Ensuring that afforestation, reforestation,
improvement of poorly stocked stands, timber stand
improvement, practices necessary to improve seedling growth
and survival, and growth enhancement practices occur where
needed to enhance and sustain the long-term productivity of
timber and nontimber forest resources to help meet future
public demand for all forest resources and provide
environmental benefits.
``(3) Reduce the risks and help restore, recover, and
mitigate the damage to forests caused by fire, insects,
invasive species, disease, and damaging weather.
``(4) Increase and enhance carbon sequestration
opportunities.
``(5) Enhance implementation of agroforestry practices.
``(6) Maintain and enhance the forest landbase and leverage
State and local financial and technical assistance to owners
that promote the same conservation and environmental values.
``(c) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--An owner of nonindustrial private forest
land is eligible for cost-sharing assistance under the
Program if the owner--
``(A) agrees to develop and implement an individual
stewardship, forest, or stand management plan addressing site
specific activities and practices in cooperation with, and
approved by, the State forester, state official, or private
sector program in consultation with the State forester;
``(B) agrees to implement approved activities in accordance
with the plan for a period of not less than 10 years, unless
the State forester approves a modification to such plan; and
``(C) meets the acreage restrictions as determined by the
State forester in conjunction with the State Forest
Stewardship Coordinating Committee established under section
19.
``(2) State priorities.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the State forester and the State Forest Stewardship
Coordinating Committee may develop State priorities for cost
sharing under the Program that will promote forest management
objectives in that State.
``(3) Development of plan.--An owner shall be eligible for
cost-share assistance for the development of the individual
stewardship, forest, or stand management plan required by
paragraph (1).
``(d) Approved Activities.--
``(1) Development.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State forester and the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating
Committee, shall develop a list of approved forest activities
and practices that will be eligible for cost-share assistance
under the Program within each State.
``(2) Type of activities.--In developing a list of approved
activities and practices under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall attempt to achieve the establishment, restoration,
management, maintenance, and enhancement of forests and trees
for the following:
``(A) The sustainable growth and management of forests for
timber production.
``(B) The restoration, use, and enhancement of forest
wetlands and riparian areas.
``(C) The protection of water quality and watersheds
through the application of State-developed forestry best
management practices.
``(D) Energy conservation and carbon sequestration
purposes.
``(E) Habitat for flora and fauna.
``(F) The control, detection, and monitoring of invasive
species on forestlands as well as preventing the spread and
providing for the restoration of lands affected by invasive
species.
``(G) Hazardous fuels reduction and other management
activities that reduce the risks and help restore, recover,
and mitigate the damage to forests caused by fire.
``(H) The development of forest or stand management plans.
``(I) Other activities approved by the Secretary, in
coordination with the State forester and the State Forest
Stewardship Coordinating Committee.
``(e) Cooperation.--In implementing the Program, the
Secretary shall cooperate with other Federal, State, and
local natural resource management agencies, institutions of
higher education, and the private sector.
``(f) Reimbursement of Eligible Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall share the cost of
implementing the approved activities that the Secretary
determines are appropriate, in the case of an owner that has
entered into an agreement to place nonindustrial private
forest lands of the owner in the Program.
``(2) Rate.--The Secretary shall determine the appropriate
reimbursement rate for cost-share payments under paragraph
(1) and the schedule for making such payments.
``(3) Maximum.--The Secretary shall not make cost-share
payments under this subsection to an owner in an amount in
excess of 75 percent of the total cost, or a lower percentage
as determined by the State forester, to such owner for
implementing the practices under an approved plan. The
maximum payments to any one owner shall be determined by the
Secretary.
``(4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall make
determinations under this subsection in consultation with the
State forester.

[[Page H6223]]

``(g) Recapture.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and
implement a mechanism to recapture payments made to an owner
in the event that the owner fails to implement any approved
activity specified in the individual stewardship, forest, or
stand management plan for which such owner received cost-
share payments.
``(2) Additional remedy.--The remedy provided in paragraph
(1) is in addition to any other remedy available to the
Secretary.
``(h) Distribution.--The Secretary shall distribute funds
available for cost sharing under the Program among the States
only after giving appropriate consideration to--
``(1) the total acreage of nonindustrial private forest
land in each State;
``(2) the potential productivity of such land;
``(3) the number of owners eligible for cost sharing in
each State;
``(4) the opportunities to enhance non-timber resources on
such forest lands;
``(5) the anticipated demand for timber and nontimber
resources in each State;
``(6) the need to improve forest health to minimize the
damaging effects of catastrophic fire, insects, disease, or
weather; and
``(7) the need and demand for agroforestry practices in
each State.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Nonindustrial private forest lands.--The term
`nonindustrial private forest lands' means rural lands, as
determined by the Secretary, that--
``(A) have existing tree cover or are suitable for growing
trees; and
``(B) are owned or controlled by any nonindustrial private
individual, group, association, corporation, Indian tribe, or
other private legal entity (other than a nonprofit private
legal entity) so long as the individual, group, association,
corporation, tribe, or entity has definitive decision-making
authority over the lands, including through long-term leases
and other land tenure systems, for a period of time long
enough to ensure compliance with the Program.
``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' includes a private
individual, group, association, corporation, Indian tribe, or
other private legal entity (other than a nonprofit private
legal entity) that has definitive decision-making authority
over nonindustrial private forest lands through a long-term
lease or other land tenure systems.
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(4) State forester.--The term `State forester' means the
director or other head of a State Forestry Agency or
equivalent State official.
``(j) Availability of Funds.--The Secretary shall use
$200,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
carry out the Program during the period beginning on October
1, 2001, and ending on September 30, 2011.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 246(b)(2) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6962(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``forestry
incentive program'' and inserting ``Forest Land Enhancement
Program''.

SEC. 803. RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

(a) Extension and Authorization Increase.--Section 6 of the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$30,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative.--The
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 is amended by
inserting after section 5A (16 U.S.C. 1674a) the following
new section:

``SEC. 5B. SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY OUTREACH INITIATIVE.

``The Secretary shall establish a program to be known as
the `Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative' for the
purpose of educating landowners regarding the following:
``(1) The value and benefits of practicing sustainable
forestry.
``(2) The importance of professional forestry advice in
achieving their sustainable forestry objectives.
``(3) The variety of public and private sector resources
available to assist them in planning for and practicing
sustainable forestry.''.

SEC. 804. ENHANCED COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The severity and intensity of wildland fires has
increased dramatically over the past few decades as a result
of past fire and land management policies.
(2) The record 2000 fire season is a prime example of what
can be expected if action is not taken.
(3) These wildfires threaten not only the nation's forested
resources, but the thousands of communities intermingled with
the wildlands in the wildland-urban interface.
(4) The National Fire Plan developed in response to the
2000 fire season is the proper, coordinated, and most
effective means to address this wildfire issue.
(5) Whereas adequate authorities exist to tackle the
wildfire issues at the landscape level on Federal lands,
there is limited authority to take action on most private
lands where the largest threat to life and property lies.
(6) There is a significant Federal interest in enhancing
community protection from wildfire.
(b) Enhanced Protection.--The Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by inserting after section
10 (16 U.S.C. 2106) the following new section:

``SEC. 10A. ENHANCED COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION.

``(a) Cooperative Management Related to Wildfire Threats.--
The Secretary may cooperate with State foresters and
equivalent State officials in the management of lands in the
United States for the following purposes:
``(1) Aid in wildfire prevention and control.
``(2) Protect communities from wildfire threats.
``(3) Enhance the growth and maintenance of trees and
forests that promote overall forest health.
``(4) Ensure the continued production of all forest
resources, including timber, outdoor recreation
opportunities, wildlife habitat, and clean water, through
conservation of forest cover on watersheds, shelterbelts, and
windbreaks.
``(b) Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program.--
``(1) Establishment; purpose.--The Secretary shall
establish a Community and Private Land Fire Assistance
program (in this section referred to as the `Program')--
``(A) to focus the Federal role in promoting optimal
firefighting efficiency at the Federal, State, and local
levels;
``(B) to augment Federal projects that establish landscape
level protection from wildfires;
``(C) to expand outreach and education programs to
homeowners and communities about fire prevention; and
``(D) to establish defensible space around private
landowners homes and property against wildfires.
``(2) Administration and implementation.--The Program shall
be administered by the Forest Service and implemented through
the State forester or equivalent State official.
``(3) Components.--In coordination with existing
authorities under this Act, the Secretary may undertake on
both Federal and non-Federal lands--
``(A) fuel hazard mitigation and prevention;
``(B) invasive species management;
``(C) multi-resource wildfire planning;
``(D) community protection planning;
``(E) community and landowner education enterprises,
including the program known as FIREWISE;
``(F) market development and expansion;
``(G) improved wood utilization;
``(H) special restoration projects.
``(4) Considerations.--The Secretary shall use local
contract personnel wherever possible to carry out projects
under the Program.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $35,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, and such sums as
may be necessary thereafter, to carry out this section.''.

SEC. 805. INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY PROGRAM.

Section 2405(d) of the Global Climate Change Prevention Act
of 1990 (title XXIV of Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 6704(d))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 806. LONG-TERM FOREST STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS FOR
HAZARDOUS FUELS REMOVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN.

(a) Annual Assessment of Treatment Acreage.--Not later than
March 1 of each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to Congress an
assessment of the number of acres of forested National Forest
System lands recommended to be treated during the next fiscal
year using stewardship end result contracts authorized by
subsection (c). The assessment shall be based on the
treatment schedules contained in the report entitled
``Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems'', dated October 13, 2000, and incorporated into
the National Fire Plan. The assessment shall identify the
acreage by condition class, type of treatment, and treatment
year to achieve the restoration goals outlined in the report
within 10-, 15-, and 20-year time periods. The assessment
shall also include changes in the restoration goals based on
the effects of fire, hazardous fuel treatments pursuant to
the National Fire Plan, or updates in data.
(b) Funding Recommendation.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall include in the annual assessment a request for funds
sufficient to implement the recommendations contained in the
assessment using stewardship end result contracts under
subsection (c) when the Secretary determines that the
objectives of the National Fire Plan are best accomplished
through forest stewardship end result contracting.
(c) Stewardship End Result Contracting.--
(1) Authority.--Subject to the amount of funds made
available pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Agriculture may enter into stewardship end result contracts
to implement the National Fire Plan on National Forest System
lands based upon the stewardship treatment schedules provided
in the annual assessments under subsection (a). The
contracting goals and authorities described in subsections
(b) through (f) of section 347 of the Department of the
Interior and Related

[[Page H6224]]

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104
note; commonly known as the Stewardship End Result
Contracting Demonstration Project) shall apply to contracts
entered into under this subsection, except that the period of
the contract shall be 10 years.
(2) Duration.--The authority of the Secretary of
Agriculture to enter into contracts under this subsection
expires September 30, 2007.
(d) Status Report.--Beginning with the assessment required
under subsection (a) in 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall include in the annual assessment a status report of the
stewardship end result contracts entered into under the
authority of this section.

SEC. 807. MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY RESEARCH
PROGRAM.

It is the sense of Congress to reaffirm the importance of
Public Law 87-88 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as
the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act.

TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Tree Assistance Program

SEC. 901. ELIGIBILITY.

(a) Loss.--Subject to the limitation in subsection (b), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall provide assistance, as
specified in section 902, to eligible orchardists that
planted trees for commercial purposes but lost such trees as
a result of a natural disaster, as determined by the
Secretary.
(b) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist shall qualify for
assistance under subsection (a) only if such orchardist's
tree mortality, as a result of the natural disaster, exceeds
15 percent (adjusted for normal mortality).

SEC. 902. ASSISTANCE.

The assistance provided by the Secretary of Agriculture to
eligible orchardists for losses described in section 901
shall consist of either--
(1) reimbursement of 75 percent of the cost of replanting
trees lost due to a natural disaster, as determined by the
Secretary, in excess of 15 percent mortality (adjusted for
normal mortality); or
(2) at the discretion of the Secretary, sufficient
seedlings to reestablish the stand.

SEC. 903. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.

(a) Limitation.--The total amount of payments that a person
shall be entitled to receive under this subtitle may not
exceed $50,000, or an equivalent value in tree seedlings.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall issue
regulations--
(1) defining the term ``person'' for the purposes of this
subtitle, which shall conform, to the extent practicable, to
the regulations defining the term ``person'' issued under
section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308)
and the Disaster Assistance Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note);
and
(2) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines
necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the
limitation established under this section.

SEC. 904. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Eligible orchardist.--The term ``eligible orchardist''
means a person who produces annual crops from trees for
commercial purposes and owns 500 acres or less of such trees.
(2) Natural disaster.--The term ``natural disaster''
includes plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire,
freeze, flood, earthquake, and other occurrences, as
determined by the Secretary.
(3) Tree.--The term ``tree'' includes trees, bushes, and
vines.

Subtitle B--Other Matters

SEC. 921. HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION GRANTS TO PREVENT WILDFIRE
DISASTERS AND TRANSFORM HAZARDOUS FUELS TO
ELECTRIC ENERGY, USEFUL HEAT, OR TRANSPORTATION
FUELS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The damages caused by wildfire disasters have been
equivalent in magnitude to the damage resulting from the
Northridge earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, and the recent
flooding of the Mississippi River and the Red River.
(2) More than 20,000 communities in the United States are
at risk to wildfire and approximately 11,000 of these
communities are located near Federal lands. More than
72,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands and
57,000,000 acres of lands managed by the Secretary of the
Interior are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future.
The accumulation of heavy forest fuel loads continues to
increase as a result of disease, insect infestations, and
drought, further raising the risk of fire each year.
(3) Modification of forest fuel load conditions through the
removal of hazardous fuels will minimize catastrophic damage
from wildfires, reducing the need for emergency funding to
respond to wildfires and protecting lives, communities,
watersheds, and wildlife habitat.
(4) The hazardous fuels removed from forest lands represent
an abundant renewable resource as well as a significant
supply of biomass for biomass-to-energy facilities.
(b) Hazardous Fuels to Energy Grant Program.--The Secretary
concerned may make a grant to a person that operates a
biomass-to-energy facility to offset the costs incurred to
purchase hazardous fuels from forest lands for use by the
facility in the production of electric energy, useful heat,
or transportation fuels. The Secretary concerned shall select
grant recipients on the basis of their planned purchases of
hazardous fuels and the level of anticipated benefits to
reduced wildfire risk.
(c) Grant Amounts.--A grant under this section shall be
equal to at least $5 per ton of hazardous fuels delivered,
but not to exceed $10 per ton of hazardous fuels delivered,
based on the distance of the hazardous fuels from the
biomass-to-energy facility.
(d) Monitoring of Grant Recipient Activities.--As a
condition on a grant under this section, the grant recipient
shall keep such records as the Secretary concerned may
require to fully and correctly disclose the use of the grant
funds and all transactions involved in the purchase of
hazardous fuels derived from forest lands. Upon notice by a
duly authorized representative of the Secretary concerned,
the operator of a biomass-to-energy facility that purchases
or uses the resulting hazardous fuels shall afford the
representative reasonable access to the facility and an
opportunity to examine the inventory and records of the
facility.
(e) Monitoring of Effect of Treatments.--The Secretary
concerned shall monitor Federal lands from which hazardous
fuels are removed and sold to a biomass-to-energy facility to
determine and document the reduction in fire hazards on such
lands.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Biomass-to-energy facility.--The term ``biomass-to-
energy facility'' means a facility that uses forest biomass
as a raw material to produce electric energy, useful heat, or
transportation fuels.
(2) Forest biomass.--The term ``forest biomass'' means
hazardous fuels and biomass accumulations from precommercial
thinnings, slash, and brush on forest lands that do not
satisfy the definition of hazardous fuels.
(3) Hazardous fuels.--The term ``hazardous fuels'' means
any unnaturally excessive accumulation of organic material,
particularly in areas designated as condition class 2 or
condition class 3 (as defined in the report entitled
``Protecting People and Sustainable Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems'', prepared by the Forest Service, and dated
October 13, 2000), on forest lands that the Secretary
concerned determines poses a substantial present or potential
hazard to forest ecosystems, wildlife, human, community, or
firefighter safety in the case of a wildfire, particularly a
wildfire in a drought year.
(4) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture or the designee of the
Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the National Forest
System lands and private lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior or the designee of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to Federal lands under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and Indian
lands.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry
out this section.

SEC. 922. BIOENERGY PROGRAM.

Notwithstanding any limitations in the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.) or part 1424
of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall designate animal fats, agricultural
byproducts, and oils as eligible agricultural commodities for
use in the Bioenergy Program to promote industrial
consumption of agricultural commodities for the production of
ethanol and biodiesel fuels.

SEC. 923. AVAILABILITY OF SECTION 32 FUNDS.

The 2d undesignated paragraph of section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (Public Law 320; 49 Stat. 774; 7 U.S.C.
612c), is amended by striking ``$300,000,000'' and inserting
``$500,000,000''.

SEC. 924. SENIORS FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--For each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2011, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use
$15,000,000 of the funds available to the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out and expand a seniors farmers' market
nutrition program.
(b) Program Purposes.-- The purposes of the seniors
farmers' market nutrition program are--
(1) to provide resources in the form of fresh, nutritious,
unprepared, locally grown fruits, vegetables, and herbs from
farmers' markets, roadside stands and community supported
agriculture programs to low-income seniors;
(2) to increase the domestic consumption of agricultural
commodities by expanding or aiding in the expansion of
domestic farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community
supported agriculture programs; and
(3) to develop or aid in the development of new and
additional farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community
supported agriculture programs.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such regulations
as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the seniors
farmers' market nutrition program.

SEC. 925. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORITIES REGARDING
CANEBERRIES.

(a) Authority for Marketing Order and Research and
Promotion Order.--Section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
(1) in subsection (2)--

[[Page H6225]]

(A) in paragraph (A), by inserting ``caneberries (including
raspberries, blackberries, and logenberries),'' after ``other
than pears, olives, grapefruit,''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``caneberries
(including raspberries, blackberries, and logenberries),''
after ``effective as to cherries, apples,''; and
(2) in subsection (6)(I), by inserting ``caneberries
(including raspberries, blackberries, and logenberries)''
after ``tomatoes,''.
(b) Authority With Respect to Imports.--Section 8e(a) of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-1(a)) is amended by inserting
``caneberries (including raspberries, blackberries, and
logenberries),'' after ``pistachios,''.

SEC. 926. NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION.

Section 278 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6998) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(f) Finality of Certain Appeal Decisions.--If an
appellant prevails at the regional level in an administrative
appeal of a decision by the Division, the agency may not
pursue an administrative appeal of that decision to the
national level.''.

SEC. 927. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED
FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

Subsection (a) of section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Outreach and Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this
section referred to as the `Secretary') shall provide
outreach and technical assistance programs specifically to
encourage and assist socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers to own and operate farms and ranches and to
participate equitably in the full range of agricultural
programs. This assistance, which should enhance coordination
and make more effective the outreach, technical assistance,
and education efforts authorized in specific agriculture
programs, shall include information and assistance on
commodity, conservation, credit, rural, and business
development programs, application and bidding procedures,
farm and risk management, marketing, and other essential
information to participate in agricultural and other programs
of the Department.
``(2) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary may make grants
and enter into contracts and other agreements in the
furtherance of this section with the following entities:
``(A) Any community-based organization, network, or
coalition of community-based organizations that--
``(i) has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural
education or other agriculturally related services to
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers;
``(ii) provides documentary evidence of its past experience
of working with socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
during the two years preceding its application for assistance
under this section; and
``(iii) does not engage in activities prohibited under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, including Tuskegee
Institute, Indian tribal community colleges and Alaska native
cooperative colleges, Hispanic serving post-secondary
educational institutions, and other post-secondary
educational institutions with demonstrated experience in
providing agriculture education or other agriculturally
related services to socially disadvantaged family farmers and
ranchers in their region.
``(C) Federally recognized tribes and national tribal
organizations with demonstrated experience in providing
agriculture education or other agriculturally related
services to socially disadvantaged family farmers and
ranchers in their region.
``(3) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for each fiscal year to make grants and enter
into contracts and other agreements with the entities
described in paragraph (2) and to otherwise carry out the
purposes of this subsection.''.

SEC. 928. EQUAL TREATMENT OF POTATOES AND SWEET POTATOES.

Section 508(a)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``and potatoes''
and inserting ``, potatoes, and sweet potatoes''.

SEC. 929. REFERENCE TO SEA GRASS AND SEA OATS AS CROPS
COVERED BY NONINSURED CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

Section 196(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333(a)(2)(B)) is amended by
inserting ``sea grass and sea oats,'' after ``fish),''.

SEC. 930. OPERATION OF GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE.

(a) Competition.--Section 921 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 2279b) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``Under'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Educational, training, and professional development
activities.--Under''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Competition.--The Graduate School may not enter into
a contract or agreement with a Federal agency to provide
services or conduct activities described in paragraph (1)
unless, before the awarding of the contract or agreement, the
contract or agreement was subject to competition that was
open to individuals and entities of the private sector.'';
and
(2) in subsection (i), by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Subject to subsection (c)(2), the''.
(b) Audits of Records.--Such section is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Audits of Records.--The financial records of the
Graduate School relating to contracts and agreements for
services or activities described in subsection (c)(1) shall
be made available to the Comptroller General for purposes of
conducting an audit.''.
(c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 1669 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5922) is repealed.

SEC. 931. ASSISTANCE FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS.

(a) Availability of Assistance.--In such amounts as are
provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Secretary may
provide assistance to dairy and other livestock producers to
cover economic losses incurred by such producers in
connection with the production of livestock.
(b) Types of Assistance.--The assistance provided to
livestock producers may be in the form of--
(1) indemnity payments to livestock producers who incur
livestock mortality losses;
(2) livestock feed assistance to livestock producers
affected by shortages of feed;
(3) compensation for sudden increases in production costs;
and
(4) such other assistance, and for such other economic
losses, as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Limitations.--Notwithstanding section 181(a), the
Secretary may not use the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide assistance under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment, as modified, shall be
in order except those printed before October 3, 2001, 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 and shall be considered read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

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

Amendment No. 54 offered by Mr. Stenholm:
In section 167(a), strike paragraphs (4) and (5) (page 119,
line 9, through page 120, line 2), and insert the following:
(4) Options for obtaining loan.--A marketing assistance
loan under this subsection, and loan deficiency payments
under subsection (e) may be obtained at the option of the
peanut producer through--
(A) a designated marketing association of peanut producers
that is approved by the Secretary; or
(B) the Farm Service Agency.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes both the Farm
Service Agency, FSA, and designated marketing associations of peanut
producers that are approved by the Secretary to make marketing
assistance loans and loan deficiency payments. The amendment deletes a
provision that would allow the Secretary to approve other loan
servicing agents. In addition, it would make a conforming amendment to
delete the provisions that would require loan servicing agents to
provide storage to other loan servicing agents and marketing
associations.
The purpose of this amendment is clearly stated here. We are making
some drastic changes in the manner in which our peanut program works
for purposes of making our peanuts more competitive in the marketplace.
We believe that this amendment is necessary in order that our producers
are given the best option of increasing their pricing capabilities
under a more market-oriented program which is what we are doing with
the peanut section of this bill this year.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record that
CBO has determined that there is no cost associated with this
amendment. I would like to tell the gentleman from Texas that I support
his amendment and would be happy to accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

[[Page H6226]]

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Boswell

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

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Boswell:
At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. RENEWABLE ENERGY RESERVE.

(a) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this section to create
a reserve of agricultural commodities to--
(1) provide feedstocks to support and further the
production of the renewable energy; and
(2) support the renewable energy industry in times when
production is at risk of decline due to reduced feedstock
supplies or significant commodity price increases.
(b) Establishment.--During fiscal years 2002 through 2011,
the Secretary shall establish and administer a government-
owned and farmer-stored renewable energy reserve program
under which producers of agricultural commodities will be
able to--
(1) sell agricultural commodities authorized by the
Secretary into the reserve; and
(2) store such agricultural commodities.
(c) Name.--The agricultural commodity reserve established
under this section shall be known as the ``Renewable Energy
Reserve''.
(d) Purchases.--The Secretary shall purchase agricultural
commodities at commercial rates in order to establish,
maintain, or enhance the reserve when--
(1) such commodities are in abundant supply; and
(2) there is need for adequate carryover stocks to ensure a
reliable supply of the commodities to meet the purposes of
the reserve or it is otherwise necessary to fulfill the needs
and purposes of the renewable energy program administered or
assisted by the Secretary.
(e) Limitation.--Purchases under this section shall be
limited to--
(1) the type and quantities of agricultural commodities
necessary to provide approximately four-month's estimated
utilization for renewable energy purposes;
(2) an additional amount of commodities to provide
incentives for research and development of new renewable
fuels and bio-energy initiatives; and
(3) such maximum quantities of agricultural commodities
determined by the Secretary as will enable the purposes of
the renewable energy program to be achieved.
(f) Release of Stocks.--Stocks shall be released at cost of
acquisition, and in amounts determined appropriate by the
Secretary, when market prices of the agricultural commodity
exceed 100 percent of the full economic cost of production of
those commodities. Cost of production for the commodity shall
be determined by the Economic Research Service using the best
available information, and based on a three year moving
average.
(g) Storage Payments.--The Secretary shall provide storage
payments to producers of agricultural commodities to maintain
the reserve established under this section. Storage payments
shall--
(1) be in such amounts and under such conditions as the
Secretary determines appropriate to encourage producers to
participate in the program;
(2) reflect local, commercial storage rates subject to
appropriate conditions concerning quality management and
other factors; and
(3) not be less than comparable local commercial rates,
except as may be provided by paragraph (2).
(h) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the funds,
facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to fulfill the purposes of this section. To the
maximum extent practicable consistent with the purposes, and
effective and efficient administration of this section, the
Secretary shall utilize the usual and customary channels,
facilities and arrangement of trade and commerce.
(2) Reduction in fixed, decoupled payments for funding
offset.--Notwithstanding section 104, the Secretary shall
reduce the total amount payable under such section as fixed,
decoupled payments, on a pro rata basis across covered
commodities, so that the total amount of such reductions
equals $277,000,000 in fiscal year 2004, $93,000,000 in
fiscal year 2005, $80,000,000 in fiscal year 2006,
$88,000,000 in fiscal year 2007, $96,000,000 in fiscal year
2008, $95,000,000 in fiscal year 2009, $96,000,000 in fiscal
year 2010, and $97,000,000 in fiscal year 2011.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to compliment, as
many others have done, and justly so, Chairman Combest and Ranking
Member Stenholm for the manner in which they have worked on this bill.
In my years in the legislature and in the years I have been here, I
have never seen a better effort. They deserve a lot of appreciation for
their hard work.
As we all know, America has a long established strategic oil reserve
in the event of a petroleum shortage or supply interruption. The
creation of this reserve is a responsible policy that has protected our
country and its industrial foundation from potential instability in oil
and fuel markets as well as from disruption of foreign oil supplies.
Since the inception of the reserve, our energy needs have become more
diverse, and our capacity to develop and produce large amounts of clean
burning renewable fuels has been tested and proved.
Consumers, car manufacturers, commodity processors and farmers
recognize that renewable fuels are quickly becoming a vital and
integral part of our national supply of clean-air transportation fuels.
The time is right to establish a strategic renewable energy reserve.
Farmers can help America's energy security by dedicating a renewable
commodity reserve to emergency renewable fuel production.
For these reasons, I am offering a renewable energy reserve
amendment, using product grown from the land that can be repeated year
after year and give us some independence from OPEC and a chance to show
the country and the world we are serious about alternatives.
I am offering the renewable energy amendment to, one, establish a
government-owned and farmer-stored renewable energy reserve containing
an amount of farm commodities equal to 4 months' production of ethanol
and biodiesel. These commodities will be stored on-farm in corn and
soybean base and will be designated solely for the production of
renewable fuels.
Two, create a renewable energy reserve that will complement all bio-
based fuel initiatives and add to America's emergency energy
preparedness plan.
Three, shift some of our national energy consumption away from high-
priced imported oil and towards renewable energy products grown on our
Nation's farms. This strategy is compatible with our national
environmental objectives and will strengthen our economy and our
national security.
And, lastly, create a renewable energy reserve that will ensure a
steady supply of feed stock for energy production in the event of a
national emergency, crop production shortfall, increased commodity
prices or a gasoline/diesel shortage.
The cost of this amendment will be approximately $650 million over 10
years. The funding for the renewable energy reserve will be taken from
the commodity title through an across-the-board percentage reduction in
the overall funding of less than 1 percent.
According to USDA estimates, as the U.S. moves toward banning MTBE
and increasing the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel, the
tripling of demand for ethanol would increase U.S. farm income by an
average of $1.3 billion each year and would save the country over $4
billion annually in imported oil and hundreds of millions of dollars
annually in taxpayer outlays for farm programs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in the support of this amendment.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, say there is no one on our
committee who works harder in behalf of his farmers than the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). There is no one on our committee that I have
more respect for than the gentleman from Iowa.

{time} 1300

But I do rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, basically
for two reasons. Number one is the most critical.
As I have indicated, one of the words you are going to hear
throughout the discussion of this farm bill for the next however long
is going to be balance. The maintaining of that balance is important
because that is what has been brought together as far as a broad base
of support.
Now, granted, the gentleman in making some changes in the fixed
decoupled payment does not greatly rob that account, but I am also
aware that there are numerous amendments that, bit by bit by bit by
bit, begin to attack that. I am concerned about going down that road,
because if this balance becomes undone, I think this thing may go into
free-fall.
Secondly, in terms of what the amendment does, we discussed this
subject in the committee during markup of this bill. I can appreciate
where the gentleman is coming from, but I have concerns about a program
which sets up reserves of commodities.

[[Page H6227]]

History historically has shown us that reserves can result in large
quantities of commodities that eventually may become government stocks.
I think it creates the removal of commodities from the market in order
to put into storage, which I think gives a false market signal; and I
think it can have some impact on production. Under current law, and I
think most of us agree, the government is not and should not be in the
business of managing supply. Eventually, with stocks as they build up,
it leads to lower prices, therefore, I think potentially costlier
program payments in order to keep the farm economy going. I am not
questioning the intent, but I think what this does is it establishes a
precedent for reserve programs of the past that have not worked well.
They have been tried, and they have failed.
Finally, I think what it does is it takes from again a balance that
reaches across-the-board and it shifts that balance into only dealing
with and providing assistance for a much smaller number of people.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one additional
minute to make a response.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Combest) for his comments. This reserve will not hang over the market.
These commodities are designated specifically for energy reserve. 66.2
million annually for 300 million gallons of renewable fuel seems like a
reasonable request.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments and concerns. The gentleman
mentions all the other amendments. This just happens to be the most
important one.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell)
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

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

Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
In section 307, insert after paragraph (7) (page 188, after
line 22) the following (and conform the subsequent paragraphs
accordingly):
(8) by striking section 206 (7 U.S.C. 1726);
In section 307, insert after paragraph (11) as redesignated
(page 189, after line 21) the following (and conform the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(12) in section 407(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. 1736a(c)(1))--
(A) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting ``(A)
The Administrator''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
(B) In the case of commodities made available for
nonemergency assistance under title II or III for countries
in transition from crisis to development or for least
developed, net food-importing countries, the Administrator
may pay the transportation costs incurred in moving the
commodities from designated points of entry or ports of entry
abroad to storage and distribution sites and associated
storage and distribution costs.

Modification of Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment with the modification that has been placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

The amendment as modified is as follows:
In section 307, insert after paragraph (7) (page 188, after
line 22) the following (and conform the subsequent paragraphs
accordingly):
(8) by striking section 206 (7 U.S.C. 1726);
In section 307, insert after paragraph (11) as redesignated
(page 189, after line 21) the following (and conform the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(12) in section 407(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. 1736a(c)(1))--
(A) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting ``(A)
The Administrator''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
(B) In the case of commodities made available for
nonemergency assistance under title II for least developed
countries that meet the poverty and other eligibility
criteria established by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development for financing under the
International Development Association, the Administrator may
pay the transportation costs incurred in moving the
commodities from designated points of entry or ports of entry
abroad to storage and distribution sites and associated
storage and distribution costs.

Mr. HALL of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is recognized for 5
minutes on his modified amendment.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a slight technical
change to the Food for Peace, P.L. 480 Program. This is one of our
primary food aid programs, along with section 416(b) and Food for
Progress. These vital programs allow the bounty our farmers produce to
go to feed the least among us. America is great because America is
good, and this is the best America has to offer the world.
This modified amendment further defines the poor countries that would
be able to receive U.S. commodities and the transportation costs to get
them to the hungry. It is supported by the World Food Program and
private aid organizations.
I am pleased that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest)
supports this amendment. I thank the gentleman and his staff,
especially Lynn Gallagher, for all of their assistance. I also
appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and his concern for
our food aid program.
This amendment is a very small step towards my larger hope that the
United States would increase our food aid for the poorest nations of
the world. While we donate more food than any other country, to whom
much is given, much is expected. In reality, we provide only one-half
of one percent of our budget for humanitarian aid, and this should be
much higher.
I spoke earlier of the good will our food aid buys around the world.
My travels to poor countries around the world have convinced me that
our enemies and allies respect us because of our compassion and our
generosity. We are a compassionate and generous country, and our food
aid programs are a terrific example of this.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his courtesy in discussing his amendment process with us
prior to offering it.
I would say that there is no one in the House who can stand taller
than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) in his concern about hunger
around the world. I respect him for that, and am very happy to accept
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

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

Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Stenholm:
At the end of title I (page 133, after line 13), insert the
following new section:

SEC. __. REPORT ON EFFECT OF CERTAIN FARM PROGRAM PAYMENTS ON
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF PRODUCERS AND FARMING
INFRASTRUCTURE.

(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct a review of the effects that payments under
production flexibility contracts and market loss assistance

[[Page H6228]]

payments have had, and that fixed, decoupled payments and
counter-cyclical payments are likely to have, on the economic
viability of producers and the farming infrastructure,
particularly in areas where climate, soil types, and other
agronomic conditions severely limit the covered crops that
producers can choose to successfully and profitably produce.
(b) Case Study Related to Rice Production.--The review
shall include a case study of the effects that the payments
described in subsection (a), and the forecast effects of
increasing these or other decoupled payments, are likely to
have on rice producers (including tenant rice producers), the
rice milling industry, and the economies of rice farming
areas in Texas, where harvested rice acreage has fallen from
320,000 acres in 1995 to only 211,000 acres in 2001.
(c) Report and Recommendations.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, 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 a report describing the
information collected for the review and the case study and
any findings made on the basis of such information. The
report shall include recommendations for minimizing the
adverse effects on producers, with a special focus on
producers who are tenants, on the agricultural economies in
farming areas generally, on those particular areas described
in subsection (a), and on the area that is the subject of the
case study in subsection (b).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires USDA to review
the effects that decoupled payments under the Agriculture Market
Transition Act have had on the economic viability of farmers and
farming infrastructure, especially in areas where conditions limit the
program crops that can be grown.
The review must include a case study of the effects that decoupled
payments, increases in decreases payments, for example, disaster
assistance, and other countercyclical decoupled payments, will have on
rice producers and the rice industry in Texas. USDA has 90 days from
enactment to report its findings and recommendations on ways to
minimize adverse impacts on rice farmers and the rice industry to the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and
want to also indicate again for the record that this is a no cost
amendment. There are a number of people in rice-producing areas of
Texas that share the gentleman's concerns, as I do; and I would be
happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out the
relevance of this study in that we are also, in the bill before us,
going to have similar situations perhaps develop in other regions of
the country; and I think the relevance of this study may be very
helpful to us to avoid some of the problems that have already occurred
in portions of rice country, namely in Texas.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

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

Amendment No. 55 offered by Mr. Stenholm:
Page 213, line 6, strike ``$10 million'' and insert
``$9,500,000''.
Beginning on page 214, strike line 13 and all that follows
through line 6 on page 215, and insert the following:
(f) Puerto Rico.--Section 19(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (iii) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, the
amount equal to the amount required to be paid under this
subparagraph for the preceding fiscal year, as adjusted by
the percentage by which the thrifty food plan is adjusted
under section 3(o)(4) for the current fiscal year for which
the amount is determined under this clause;''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and clause (i), the
Commonwealth may spend up to $6,000,000 of the amount
required under subparagraph (A) to be paid for fiscal year
2002 to pay 100 percent of the cost to upgrade and modernize
the electronic data processing system used to provide such
food assistance and to implement systems to simplify the
determination of eligibility to receive such assistance.''.
(g) Territory of American Samoa.--Section 24 of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2033) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Effective October 1, 1995, from'' and
inserting ``From''; and
(2) by striking ``$5,300,000 for each of fiscal years 1996
through 2002'' and inserting ``$5,750,000 for fiscal year
2002 and $5,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 though
2011''.
Page 216, line 18, strike ``(h) and (i) shall take effect
of'' and insert ``(g), (h), and (i) shall take effect on''.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds two provisions
regarding Puerto Rico and American Samoa in the nutrition programs. For
Puerto Rico, the amendment would allow Puerto Rico to spend up to $6
million of the 100 percent Federal funds in fiscal year 2002 on
upgrading and modernizing the electronic data processing systems used
to provide food assistance and to implement systems to simplify the
determination of eligibility.
For American Samoa, the amendment decreases the amount available for
simplified application and eligibility determination systems in section
405 from $10 million each year to $9.5 million each year. The amendment
raises the amount available for American Samoa in section 406(g) from
$5.75 million in fiscal year 2002 to $5.8 million in each of fiscal
year 2003 through 2011.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to indicate this is a no net cost provision
of the amendment. I am glad to accept the amendment. I appreciate the
gentleman's introducing it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out to
the House that the delegate from American Samoa and the delegate from
Puerto Rico have agreed to this. This is done at their request, as well
as ours today.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of trying to work through a
number of amendments in which we have had an opportunity to deal with a
variety of Members, and I think that the process is moving potentially
somewhat more expeditiously than was anticipated.
But I want to take just a moment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to expand
somewhat on a comment that I made in my opening statement relative to
the amount of work that has gone into this committee print that we have
before the House today.
The people who do so much of the hard, heavy lifting in our
committees are those people who do not sit around the dais or who do
not cast votes, but who sit in those offices sometimes three or four
deep and literally, as the case was in the development of this farm
program, spent all night. That happened on the majority and the
minority side, working in concert.
My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), has numerous
times mentioned the bipartisanship of this committee. This goes well
beyond just Members. This goes to the staff as well.
Certainly there are, from time to time, some philosophical
differences. That is the nature of the process. That is the nature of
the legislative process. But there is a recognition of the bigger goal,
and that bigger goal is to try to achieve something in a manner in
which we are seeing an extension of handshakes across the aisle.
I have personally never felt that we can pass a farm bill that only
receives Republican support. Number one, it probably would say a great
deal about the inadequacies of that farm bill if it in fact was a
partisan bill.
It is also many times difficult. Of the 51 members on the committee
whose service on that committee is requested and whose service on that
committee is

[[Page H6229]]

asked for and who have deep interests in agriculture, we have many
varying opinions from time to time. But all of that is finally put
aside when we have the opportunity to come together and to look at the
interests of agriculture as a whole, recognizing there are some
regional differences, recognizing that there are differences in
philosophy, recognizing there are differences in weather, recognizing
there are differences in cropping habits, that corn grown in the
chairman's district of Illinois is substantially different than corn
grown in the ranking member's district or this gentleman's district.
Yet, it is a program which we have to try to develop that fits all of
it.
Without adequate input and without taking into consideration those
people who produce that, those people who market that, those people
whose livelihood depends upon that, we, in fact, would not be able to
write a farm bill that has such a broad base of support.
Not enough can be said about the people who work for us on that
committee. I might just mention if the statistic still holds true to
this day, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the only full committee of the
House in which the Members exceed the number of staff. So it does, I
think, show how much work that is dumped upon them from time to time. I
will say that we could not be better served than we currently are.

{time} 1315

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are now having another demonstration of what has
been so frustrating to the House Committee on Agriculture as we have
moved to get to this point. We had 60 amendments notified and here we
are, none of the Members who felt compelled to make amendments and
change are here to offer their amendments. Under House procedure, what
we should do is we should move to final passage of the bill, because
obviously, all of those who have felt so compelled to argue and to
offer amendments are nowhere to be found. So we feel compelled now to
take 5 minutes to talk about whatever we are going to talk about.
Really, I guess we have the Boswell amendment, we could vote on it; but
I understand that is not what they want to do.
So let me make a comment or two. I did not get recognized on the
Boswell amendment a moment ago. Let me take just a moment and talk
about the energy section of the bill that is before us.
Mr. Chairman, it was not but about 2 years ago that we had a
depression not only in the corn and cotton patch, but also in the oil
patch. At that point in time, since I represent the cotton patch and
the oil patch, I was concerned about low energy prices, I was concerned
about energy and energy policy as a national security; and that concern
is still there. But one of the things that we recognize is that we
cannot produce food and fiber without oil and gas; we cannot produce
oil and gas without food and fiber; and, therefore, it is time for us
to start working together, which is exactly what we have done in this
bill.
In fact, something happened when we had hearings on the energy title
that I did not believe I would ever see. We had independent oil and gas
producers testifying in behalf of bioenergy, biodiesel, ethanol,
because those in the independent oil industry began to realize just as
we today are making our, we hope, compelling argument on behalf of the
remaining farmers and ranchers in this country, that we have to work
together, and that we do need to produce more energy. I had looked for
ways to be supportive of an energy reserve today, because I think the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) is on the cutting edge of what we are
eventually going to need to do.
But as we looked into it and we got into, as the chairman pointed
out, the trade-offs that have to occur, this fine balance that we are
talking about and with some of the divisions that we have within the
bioenergy industry regarding the merits of such, I do not and cannot
support his amendment today. But I will point out that we have in the
bill emergency loans for sharply increasing energy costs. We have loans
and loan guarantees for renewable energy systems. We have biomass
derived from conservation reserve program lands. We have wind turbines
on conservation reserve program lands. We have the reauthorization of
the Biomass Research and Development Act, which gives us the road map
to get to where the gentleman from Iowa wants to be, and I want to be
with him in getting there. We have the requirement of the Secretary to
give priority to improved energy efficiency on farms and farm energy.
We have the hazardous fuel reduction grants in this bill, and we also
recognize the role of bioenergy in promoting the industrial consumption
of agriculture products for the production of ethanol and biodiesel. We
expand the program by directing the Secretary to include animal fats,
agricultural by-products and oils as eligible commodities under
existing bioenergy programs.
Now, the USDA is already carrying out the CCC bioenergy program and
$150 million is being provided for fiscal year 2002, the same as fiscal
year 2001. So it is certainly not without sympathy for the gentleman's
amendment. It is there, but it is the question, as we have already
talked about, and the precise balance, and I understand that it is very
important to him.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of title IX (page ----, after line ----), insert
the following new section:

SEC. . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT AND SENSE OF
CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE
EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES USING FUNDS
PROVIDED UNDER THIS ACT.

(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds made
available under this Act, whether directly using funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation or pursuant to an authorization
of appropriations contained in this Act, may be provided to a
producer or other person or entity unless the producer,
person, or entity agrees to comply with the Buy American Act
(41 U.S.C. 10a-10c) in the expenditure of the funds.
(b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment,
products, or services that may be authorized to be purchased
using funds provided under this Act, it is the sense of
Congress that producers and other recipients of such funds
should, in expending the funds, purchase only American-made
equipment, products, and services.
(c) Notice to Recipients of Funds.--In providing payments
or other assistance under this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide to each recipient of the funds a
notice describing the requirements of subsection (a) and the
statement made in subsection (b) by Congress.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who always seems to be in the chair at the right
time and does a fine job.
I want to commend the chairman of this committee and the ranking
member. I want to spend just a second talking about the ranking member.
He has shown bipartisanship in this House for all of the years I have
been here; and he has exemplified that, I believe, as well throughout
everything he has done. Even when his principles are in opposition to
that being offered by others, he has always been a gentleman and tried
to find that common ground.
This amendment is well known by all. It is the right thing to do. If,
in fact, there is money made available under this bill, the recipients
of it shall get a notice that the Congress of the United States would
like to see those funds expended for the purchase of American-made
goods. I think the farm community understands it and may be one of the
biggest supporters of this legislation.
We have very few trade surpluses in America. I believe agriculture,
if I am not mistaken, is still a trade surplus. I am not sure of that.
But we are now beginning to average over and close to $300 billion a
year in trade deficits; and if it was not for our farmers, God forbid.
But my second amendment will deal with an issue that concerns the
cattle and animal husbandry industry of this Nation. Ground beef was
coming across our border, beef that originated in Australia coming
across our border, uninspected, and being sold as ground beef in
marketplaces throughout the United States of America. So the first one
is a Buy American amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.

[[Page H6230]]

Combest), the chairman of the committee, to ask for his support on the
amendment.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, I am happy to support the
gentleman's amendment and appreciate his tenaciousness in this area.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the preliminary
data for 2001 show that we are exporting $5.5 billion and we are
importing $39 billion. That leaves us a trade balance of $14.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. I
enthusiastically support it, and I thank him for his kind remarks.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the reason we
have that trade surplus is the result of the leadership we have had
from gentlemen like this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
will be postponed.

request To offer amendment not preprinted In The congressional record

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer at this
point a second amendment I have at the desk that was not printed
October 3.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard and the Chair would object as being
precluded by the order of the House from entertaining the request.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
At the end of section 183 (page __, beginning line __),
insert the following new subsection:
(d) Payment Limitation Regarding Marketing Assistance Loans
To Cover All Producer Gains.--In applying the payment
limitation contained in section 1001(2) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)) on the total amount of
payments and gains that a person may receive for one or more
covered commodities during any crop year, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall include each of the following:
(1) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for a crop of any covered commodity
at a lower level than the original loan rate established for
the commodity.
(2) Any loan deficiency payment received for a loan
commodity.
(3) Any gain realized by a producer through the use of the
generic certificate authority or through the actual
forfeiture of the crop covered by a nonrecourse marketing
assistance loan.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important
amendment if we are going to keep public support for agricultural
programs. The amendment puts an absolute limit on all benefits derived
from price support programs of the Federal Government.
I am a farmer. I have spent time as chairman of the ASCS committee in
Michigan administering farm programs. I help write them in Washington.
If anybody has read the papers, they know that there have been many
stories from AP and other news sources about the millions of dollars
that are going to some of the big landowners. I think that we are
hoodwinking the American people if we say that there is a limit of
$150,000 in this case; and by the way, up until last year, the limit
was only $75,000; but we now have a limit of $150,000. If you have a
wife, you can go to the USDA office and have that spouse also included
as an additional producer, making it $300,000.
I think we are hoodwinking the American people if we lead them to
believe that there is any limit on benefits that can be derived from
Federal programs on price support. That is because in a rather
complicated program, we have nonresource loans, which means that even
if one does not get the marketing loan payment, even if one does not
get the price support from a loan deficiency payment, one always has
the opportunity of forfeiting a crop or, in many cases, the Government
says instead of the forfeiture, we will give a certificate.
So in reality, there is no limit. What we are faced with is people
like NBA star Scotty Pippen, billionaire tycoon J.R. Simlot, and 20
Fortune 500 companies receiving Federal checks from the programs.
The President, the administration said today, one problem he has with
this farm bill, and allow me to read the statement that came out this
morning from the statement of administration policy: ``This bill fails
to help farmers most in need. While overall farm income is
strengthening, there is no question that some of our Nation's producers
are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and
ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would
continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in
need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government
payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very
large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share only 13
percent of the payments. H.R. 2646, without this amendment, would
continue this disparity.''
I call on my colleagues to do something that helps farmers, and we
help farmers because we are going to be inundated. Anybody that read
the Wall Street Journal today knows that, again, they criticized this
program because it goes to the big producers. Let me suggest to my
colleagues why there is momentum to not have any limitations on price
support benefits. It is because of the grain dealers, the grain deals,
the car deals, the Purinas, the Archer Daniel Midlands. Every grain
operator profits by their volume. They have so much income for every
bushel, every hundred weight; and so there is that momentum, plus the
huge farmers. We have an 80,000-, 130,000-acre farmer that controls
130,000 acres down in Florida where he lives, ended up with something
way in excess of $1 million. Mr. Chairman, 154 recipients, in total,
quoting the AP story, collected more than $1 million and wealthy
recipients are doing it.
We need to home in on this program. One way to do it is to say that
there is going to be a real limit of $150,000 that includes not only
the LDPs and the marketing loans, but also includes if you will, the
end run that these huge landowners exercise to get benefits from
forfeitures and so-called certificates.

{time} 1330

My amendment would save, according to the CBO, $1.2 billion in
benefits, or what is the figure, $1.3 billion.
So this amendment, by limiting it to these giant producers, saves
$1.3 billion. The giant producers are located, many of them, in cotton
farms in Texas, and of course, rice in Arkansas.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a Dear Colleague letter on
this matter.
The document referred to is as follows:

Washington, DC,

October 3, 2001.
``There's a lot of medium-sized farmers that need help, and
one of the things that we're going to make sure of as we
restructure the farm program next year is that the money
goes to the people it's meant to help.''--President
George W. Bush, August, 2001

Dear Colleague: Few people are aware that many of our farm
commodity programs, for all of their good intentions, are set
up to disburse payments with little regard to farm size or
financial need. Often in our rush to provide support for
struggling farmers we overlook just where that support is
going:
This amendment only limits price supports, not AMTA,
conservation, or any other type of farm payment.
The largest 18 percent of farms receive 74 percent of
federal farm program payments.
In 1999, 47 percent of farm payments went to large
commercial farms, which had an average household income of
$135,000.
The bulk of benefits over $150 thousand paid out on the
2000 harvest went to cotton and rice farmers--in fact, two
large rice cooperatives in Arkansas collected nearly $150
million between them.

[[Page H6231]]

Unlimited government price supports for program commodities
disproportionately skews federal farm aid to the largest of
producers while encouraging overproduction and allowing the
largest producers to become even larger. Let's do more to be
fair to small and moderate size family farm operations by
establishing meaningful, effective payment limitations.
Sincerely,
Nick Smith,
Member of Congress.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let us talk about this amendment for a moment. This
amendment was offered in committee; and after USDA was called upon for
comment, the amendment failed by voice vote. This is not just a
limitation amendment. What this does is it dramatically changes the way
that the loan program works.
Following the farm crisis in the 1980s, the marketing loan program
was created. Its purpose was to aid a producer in marketing commodities
to minimize the government accumulation of stocks, to minimize the
potential loan forfeitures, and to minimize the cost.
The information which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) put in
the committee report in ``additional views'' talks about the imposition
of this limitation would only affect the largest one-half of 1 percent
of farmers. It claims that the average acreage harvested to reach that
loan limitation would be, for example, 1,950 acres of cotton for 1,700
acres of rice.
In reality, it would take 701 acres of rice in Arkansas or 432 acres
of cotton in California, and I do not think that a 432-acre farm is in
the top 1 percent in size.
Let me give an example of how this would work, in reality. Today, a
cotton farmer in California with 432 acres and an average yield would
be affected by this amendment. Let us assume that the farmer put all of
his cotton from the 432 acres in the loan. With a 19 to 20 billion bail
crop, the loan deficiencies would continue downward to 30 cents.
Even though the farmer could have forfeited the cotton to the
Government in the past, this amendment would limit the amount which
they could forfeit, which would therefore then force that farmer to
take that loan out when he could have gotten 50 cents and a market
price of 30 cents.
It is a dramatic change in the way that a non-recourse loan program
in the past has worked for the past 50 years, and it is not simply a
matter of concern about the largest one-half percent of the farmers.
Again, I want to reiterate, a 701-acre rice field in Arkansas or a 432-
acre cotton field in California is not an exceptionally large 1 percent
of the top farms in the country. That is a very average-sized farm. It
is not simply a limitation on the payments; it is a dramatic change in
the way the program operates.
I would strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan. It just
makes common sense that we try to make this a more fair and equitable
type of bill, because it really does help very, very wealthy people.
I was kind of embarrassed, a newspaper article on the front page of
my Sarasota paper, unfortunately it was back on September 11, on the
front page showed President Bush waving upon his arrival the night
before.
The other big article was an AP wire service story about how most
farm subsidies go to a few. It talks about how 1,200 universities and
government farms and State prisons get money. It talks about how Ted
Turner gets $190,000 from it, Scotty Pippin, the basketball player
making $14 million a year, gets $26,000. It talks about people after
people who get $1 million, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
All that the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith)
does is try to make a little more equity and tries to make a little
more fairness in this program.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Just to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), we
have a recourse loan program, so we do not glut the program, available
to these farmers as a recourse loan. That means we do not have to sell
the product at harvest time, so this does not diminish the effort we
have made over the years to allow orderly marketing. It is still there.
Let me also say that according to the Congressional Research Service,
averaging the last 2 years, we would have had to have had 6,142 acres
of corn to reach the $150,000 limit; 6,600 acres of soybeans; 13,000
acres of wheat; 13,000 acres of sorghum; 1,951 acres of cotton; and
17,000 acres of rice. Prices vary over the years, so the acreage is
going to vary over the years. These are all huge farmers.
There are 80,000-acre landlords that are sucking in a lot of the
benefits that could go to small farmers. Again, scored, this saves $1.3
billion. At a time when we are desperately looking for finance, at a
time when we are desperately looking for fairness, I would ask my
colleagues to consider something that takes the great advantage away
from the big farmers, slows down the motivation of those big farmers to
get even bigger, buying up the small farms. It is not the kind of farm
policy we should have in the United States.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, one of the
concerns I have about this total bill, it has 70-some billion of new
spending over and above what has been spent over the past year. It is
supposed to come out of our non-Social Security surplus. Now, not only
do we not have a Social Security surplus, we are going to be into
deficit spending.
Anything we can do to reduce that 70-some billion of new spending
that was put in the budget back in May of this year, that I supported,
that was expecting these $300 billion surpluses. Now that we do not
have these huge surpluses, it makes it very difficult for us fiscal
conservatives to support a bill like this.
So anything that can reduce the total cost of this bill by $1 billion
I would hope would be supported by this House.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor the underlying bill; but as I
mentioned in my opening comments in general debate, the underlying bill
is not perfect. I believe one of the more visible imperfections is its
failure to address payment limits.
I think, as an advocate for family farmers, that our ability to
sustain the Nation's commitment to farm programs depends upon the
American public feeling like their taxpayer dollars are supporting
family farmers, not large corporate enterprises that simply do not have
the same compelling case to make for the Nation's resources.
The GAO has reported that one-half of all farm payments went to just
7 percent of all farms, the largest farms. This is misdirected policy.
By passing the Smith amendment, we place a limit that actually works,
that limit $150,000 in Federal payments, a significant amount of
Federal support. I believe it would work.
I recognize that there are economic differences in the production of
various commodities and that the production of rice and cotton,
Southern-based commodities, requires larger economic operations.
At the same time, by moving this payment limit from where it was just
2 years ago, from $75,000 up to the $150,000, I think much has been
done to accommodate the different scale of economics undergirding
production in that part of the region.
Make no mistake about it: in the end, payment limits make sense. We
devote our resources to keeping the family commercial operations in the
business; we do not divert half of all money in the bill to the largest
7 percent of the farms; and we have a program that going forward, year
after year, will be one less likely to be attacked for squandering
Federal resources.
This is about bringing integrity and common sense to farm programs. I
urge support of the amendment.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment; and I would take
issue with my friend, the gentleman from Florida, who mentioned some
folks by name who are getting payments.

[[Page H6232]]

He mentioned Scotty Pippin. According to the figures he mentioned,
this provision, this amendment, would not apply to that individual
because he does not reach that payment limitation.
Mr. Chairman, what we are asking to be done here with this amendment
is to change the rules in the middle of the stream. We have got farmers
who have been operating under the current law for years and years and
years, and they have structured their farming operations within the
confines of the law.
That law now seeks to be changed in the short term. We could have
farmers reconstruct their farming operations; but if they did, the tax
consequences to the American farmer would be huge. That would be enough
to put the farmer out of business.
I take issue with my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, that this
does not have anything to do with the marketing loan provision. It
absolutely does. We have to look at the payment limitation and work it
in coordination with the marketing loan provision. That is why we have
the payment limitation and why we have the marketing loan provision.
But more importantly, I was up here a little bit earlier. I had an
example of the Walker farm that we used in Alabama, where it was deemed
to be, by a lot of people, a corporate farm. What it is is a 7,000-acre
operation that is operated by seven families, all of whom, seven of
whom, qualify as producers, as actively engaged in farming, who have
money at risk in the operation.
Those are the folks who this amendment would seek to really hurt.
That provision would really destroy that operation; and if those folks
have money at risk, then they ought to be able to come under the
payment limitation rule and not be excluded.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, each one of these individuals is
eligible, if they go to the local FSA office, to be a separate producer
entity, each available to that $150,000 limit.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. They are now. That is my point.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This would not touch that.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, it would, too. It would limit that operation.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, sir, this is a limit per individual
producer. Excuse me.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The limit is there now. We have the certificate
provision to take care of it, over and above that.
But we would destroy the current structure of the way farms are set
up if we changed the payment limitation at this point in time. I would
urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of how we can today at
least take a system that was designed two-thirds of a century ago and
attempt to make it a little better, a little more relevant.
I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) and am proud to associate myself as a cosponsor of
it.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard on this floor how narrowly channeled our
support is. Seventy-four percent of the total subsidies go to 18
percent of the producers; two-thirds of the farm support goes to just
10 percent. The last speaker pointed out that half goes to just 7
percent.
George Bush has, as recently as this last month, pointed out that
there are a lot of medium-sized farmers that need help; and one of the
things that we are going to do is make sure that we restructure the
farm program to make sure the money goes to the people it is meant to
help.
I think what the gentleman from Michigan has done is to attempt to
give a dimension to the words of our President. The numbers of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) have indicated, and we have all
received the reports from CRS that talk about how much acreage is
necessary to trigger that limit. I think this is a modest step in the
right direction.
I know the gentleman from Michigan has some further thoughts on this,
and he has my strong support for the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
This is going to come back to harm the average farmer in the United
States. We have farm organizations that support it, and some of the big
ones do not support it; but we are looking at a situation where the
President has indicated to us this morning that this overpayment to the
big farmers is a problem.
Let me read a quote that he made last month. The President said:
``There are a lot of medium-size farmers that need help, and one of the
things we are going to make sure of as we restructure the farm programs
is that the money goes to the people that it is meant to help.''
I hope we consider doing this, because, number one, we encourage more
production, overproduction, if we say the big farmers that already have
a lower unit cost of production are getting that fixed payment, so they
tend to get bigger. They tend to buy out other farms, the medium-sized
farmer that is struggling to make a go of it and tries to buy out the
smaller farmer. So we are perpetuating the large, corporate-type
farming operations.
Maybe that is what some people want to call a family farm. I do not
think that is what the public policy of the United States Congress
should be, supporting and expanding with the kind of farm program that
does not have some real limits on farm payments.
This does not apply to the average sized farm, which is a little over
500 acres. One has to have 6,000 acres of most any of these crops to
reach the $150,000 limit.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's framing the words of our
President. I could not have said it better myself.
This is an opportunity for some bipartisan support to take an
important step for making these important programs work a little
better, inspire more confidence from the American public, save some
money, and be able to target it where it is most needed. I strongly
urge support for this amendment.

{time} 1345

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman from Michigan that the
average size farm in Idaho is larger than 500 acres, substantially
larger than 500 acres.
The Smith amendment seeks to include marketing certificates under
established payment limits on the farm program benefits, but would
effectively limit the use of marketing certificates and inhibit the
following benefits: Marketing certificates enhance competitiveness of
U.S. commodities. Marketing certificates enable the marketing loan
program to work effectively when commodity prices are low, thereby
making U.S. commodities available at market clearing prices. This
enhances demand and market share and maintains the entire agricultural
infrastructure.
Marketing certificates prevent stock overhang. Without certificates
there will be a larger stock overhang going into next year, weakening
next year's prices, making it more difficult for farmers to secure
operating loans. Large farmers will hold stocks depressing prices for
small and medium farmers.
Marketing certificates prevent loan forfeitures. Without marketing
certificates, producers would place their crops into the commodity
credit corporation loan and would likely forfeit the commodity, tying
up storage and leaving the government to market commodities almost
certainly at a substantial loss and at competition with the private
sector during the following year's harvest. Merchants would buy from
the government, and the farmer would receive less for his crop.
Mr. Chairman, I get interested in this talk about large corporate
farms versus family farms. So far I have never really been able to
figure out what is a large corporate farm versus a family farm. I know
individuals in Idaho that are corporations. Four brothers together.
They own a very, very large farm, probably 30,000 acres

[[Page H6233]]

or so. The USDA, as I said earlier, said $250,000 of gross sales makes
you a large farmer. It does not take a large acreage farm to create
$250,000 of gross sales.
Actually, 99.5 percent of those large farms are family-owned; 99.5
percent of those are family-owned. Of those farms, those large farms
that we say are large, somehow bad corporate farms or whatever, and
sometimes families create corporations for tax purposes, they create 53
percent of the crop value but only get 47 percent of the payments. They
get less than the value of the crop that they produce compared to the
small farmer. We are already tilting it toward the small farmer.
When it comes to Scotty Pippen, we always throw those names out there
because they are great in the paper. Here we have a guy making a ton of
money playing basketball. He would receive this payment even if this
amendment passed because he got it under the forestry program. It is
forest land that he has. If you limited this payment to zero, he would
still get his $26,000 under the forestry program.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and
stay with the underlying bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and
would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) his source of
the savings.
The gentleman from Florida made the allegation that this is saving
$1.3 billion. I am asking the gentleman as to what is his source of
that number.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from
Texas it is the Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. STENHOLM. There is a CBO estimate?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Yes.
Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman's amendment is the one that deals with
marketing certificates?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The $150,000 now only applies to the marketing
loans and the loan deficiency payments. This would expand it to also
include the other benefits from price support of the forfeitures and
the certificates. This is a new CBO estimate that they just gave us
this morning. The old CBO estimate said that it was going to be
something like $600 million. They gave us the new estimate this morning
of $1.33 billion.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I would love to see that
information because that certainly is contrary to anything that I have
seen.
Marketing certificates, which I believe this is aimed at limiting,
have been around for 14 years. They have been used for a very good
purpose, and that is to avoid building up CCC stocks. The effect of the
gentleman's amendment would simply be to build-up stocks, because to
equate the loan with a price support cash payment is totally
fallacious. This is not the way that marketing certificates work. What
we try to do is avoid CCC build-up of stocks.
If we are going to make it ineligible, if we want to make them
ineligible for loans, that is one thing, but that is not what the
gentleman is attempting to do. I do not believe that that is what his
intent is; but the amendment before us does not do that, which I
believe the gentleman is saying that it does.
Market certificates avoid market disruptions caused by payment
limits. When you run up against that payment limit, then we have one
choice. We put it into the loan, and then the government pays us for it
or we then market it.
Under the theory of the Freedom to Farm Act of which as we held the
hearings last year, farmers loved the Freedom to Farm, but they do not
like the results, the price.
This is a fundamental change in the direction of farm programs.
Fundamental. If one wants to go down that route, then vote for the
gentleman's amendment. I would think though that the gentleman would be
better served by his intent if he went back through the committee
process, looking ahead to another year, and saying that if we want to
limit the size of operations, then let us do it in a predictable way,
not in a retroactive way.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that what
USDA suggests on implementing this amendment, it would be simply,
instead of a nonrecourse loan that means you can forfeit, it would be a
recourse loan. So you can still borrow the money, but eventually you
will have to pay it back at the lower interest rate.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
explanation. I, even more enthusiastically, oppose the gentleman at
this stage of the game.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I, too, want to rise in support
of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) amendment. I think
basically what it is saying is when is enough enough when it comes to
the subsidy payments that direct Federal payments to some of the
biggest producers in the country? We all know that the producers do not
operate in a vacuum. They are making economic decisions day in and day
out.
Unfortunately, when I talk to a lot of the economists and those that
study agriculture policy, they are fearful and very concerned that most
of the economic decisions that are made is not based on what the market
will support and what would drive market forces, but rather, for the
government paycheck, and that is why I think we have seen an explosion
of growth in various commodity producers around the country because
they are looking at certain largess coming from Washington and these
Federal payments and making their economic and business decisions
accordingly.
The Members have heard this from many, many different people. They
are saying the same thing on the Senate side. Even the administration,
in their policy statement they released this morning, is making the
same exact point. So the Members do not have to believe the gentleman
from Michigan. The Members do not have to believe me and what is being
said about it. Look at our own administration right now and what they
say. They are very clear in their statement of policy when they come
out in opposition to the base bill.
One of the reasons they do so is because it encourages overproduction
while prices are low and I quote, ``A direct consequence of American
farm policy for many decades has been excessive production and low
prices. This policy began to change in the last farm bill. The
administration believes strongly that our national farm policy should
not distort market signals, thereby directly or indirectly depressing
farm prices. H.R. 2646 would continue to contribute to overproduction
caused partially by increased production-based payments to farmers per
bushel grown at above-market prices.''
They go on to say that the approach under the base bill also fails to
help the farmers most in need, and again, I quote the administration's
policy statement in which they said, ``While overall farm income is
strengthening, there is no question that some of our Nation's producers
are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and
ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would
continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in
need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government
payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very
large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only
13 percent of farm payments. H.R. 2646,'' again according to the
administration, ``would only increase this disparity.''
So I think the point the gentleman from Michigan is making is the
point that many of us are making, and some of the amendments that we
are planning on offering in the course of this farm bill debate, is
that at some point we have to start making some decisions in regards to
that farm policy, seeing what the overall economic impact is going to
be based on the business and economic decisions that many producers are
making throughout the country.
So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I think he has
support from both the administration and

[[Page H6234]]

also the work that is currently being conducted in the U.S. Senate in
regards to their farm policy. I think it is a reasonable approach in
order to put a check on the unbridled increase in production which
leads to oversupply. It leads to a limiting of commodity prices and
invariably leads to multibillion dollar farm relief bills coming out of
this United States Congress over the last few years.
We are caught in this vicious cycle right now, and I think the
gentleman from Michigan's amendment is trying to address that and break
us out of this cycle that we find ourselves in.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
This is the best fed country in the world. All you have got to do is
walk around the streets to see that. We are all doing pretty good. I
certainly get more than my fair share of it, but all the rhetoric on
this floor today fails to realize that.
I have heard just in the last few minutes over and over again how we
have an oversupply. These people that are talking about an oversupply,
how do you check what the stocks to use ratios are in this country? We
have got the lowest ending stock projected for next year that we have
had since 1973. There is not any huge supply of grain built up here or
anyplace else in the world. I do not know where this imaginary supply
is. I do not know where this overproduction is. It does not exist.
Freedom to farm let people plant for the market. They did plant for
the market. The supplies are not there and we actually have some risk
if we do not continue to produce at that level. We could run out of
food in this country. It is not a social program. Farm programs are not
designed to protect small farmers or large farmers or create some kind
of social condition or recreate a Jeffersonian democracy. That is not
what they are for. They are to make sure that America has enough food
and fiber to be self-sufficient and be secure. That is what this is all
about.
If we are going to start limiting government programs in the way that
has been mentioned here today, then we should limit the airlines to
$150,000. We just passed big bucks last week. Let us just limit the
airlines, give them all $150,000 and cut them off at that. You cannot
make it, buddy, tough luck.
That makes just as much sense as what this amendment does. If this is
such a profitable deal and everybody that is involved in agriculture is
standing at the government trough, why are not there more people lined
up out there to do it? Boy, I tell you what, if you want to get rich,
just go to Arkansas, buy you a big rice farm. You will find out how
big, how wealthy you can get. There is not anybody down there wanting
to do it right now. Once we create a situation in this country where
people just do not want to farm anymore, we are at risk with our food
supply.
This talk of overproduction is just simply not true. We need to pay
attention to the situation and not kill the goose that laid the golden
egg and make sure that our farmers are able to stay in business and do
the wonderful job that they have done for this country since it was
founded.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States said there are a lot
of medium-sized farmers who need help, and one of the things we are
going to make sure of is that we restructure the farm program, so that
the money goes to the people who need it the most.

{time} 1400

Mr. Chairman, on every occasion that Congress has taken up a farm
bill or an agricultural appropriations act there is one argument that
is as predictable as a football game on Thanksgiving: pass this bill,
we are told, or it will mean the end of the family farm. Well, today,
we have an opportunity to literally put our money where our mouths are.
The Smith amendment is very simple. It establishes--actually, it
enforces--a reasonable limit on the amount farmers can receive in
deficiency payments. And if I may say so, a limit of $150,000 is not
only reasonable, it is plain generous. Our current farm programs
already include this cap, but the larger farms have exploited a
loophole that allows them to bypass it through the use of commodity
certificates.
This amendment will not reduce government subsidies on a single small
farm, unless of course a small farm is defined as 20,000 acres of
cotton. What it will do is restore some sanity to the way we
appropriate government price supports. Consider the following: the
largest 18 percent of farms receive 74 percent of Federal payments. In
1999, 47 percent of farm payments went to large commercial farms; and
in that same year, a single farmer received more than $1.2 million in
government handouts.
If my colleagues think that is the way our government programs should
operate, by all means vote against this amendment. Those who think a
single farmer should receive more than $1 million in government
subsidies, while small farmers are barely making ends meet, vote
against this amendment. But if my colleagues think it is time large
farms stop fleecing American taxpayers, support this modest amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I helped end welfare in my urban areas. It is about
time we started to reduce welfare for rich farmers.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith)
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. English

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

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. English:
At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 66, after line
3), insert the following new section:

SEC. __. PRODUCER RETENTION OF ERRONEOUSLY PAID LOAN
DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOAN GAINS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation shall not
require producers in Erie County, Pennsylvania, to repay loan
deficiency payments and marketing loan gains erroneously paid
or determined to have been earned by the Commodity Credit
Corporation for certain 1998 and 1999 crops under subtitle C
of title I of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.). In the case of a
producer who has already made the repayment on or before the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall reimburse the producer for the full amount
of the repayment.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for considering this amendment
and, through it, the plight of a group of farmers in Erie County,
Pennsylvania, in a truly unique situation in the Nation.
My amendment rights a wrong that left many of our local farmers
holding the bag because of a clerical error by the Federal Government.
Last year, the Department of Agriculture ruled that our farmers were
ineligible for the Federal Loan Deficiency Program payments because
their applications were filled out improperly, notwithstanding the fact
that they carefully followed the instructions of the local farm service
office.
Erie County farmers were told by the Department that they needed to
repay the thousands of dollars with interest to the Federal Government.
The catch is that the farmers would have qualified for the payments by
all understandings if they had simply filled out the forms correctly.
This amendment, which was scored by the CBO to cost $2,000, would
therefore round to zero. This amendment does not affect budget
authority, only outlays, meaning it is clearly not in violation of rule
302(f).
This amendment simply waives the debt for those farmers who did not
repay the money, while refunding those who have already submitted their
payments.
We must ensure that not one of our farmers is held responsible for
the Federal Government's mistake. The money

[[Page H6235]]

these farmers received under this program is vital to the local farm
community. Agriculture is the number one industry in our State, our
region, and in Erie County. Farming is a vital part of our local and
national economy, and we cannot allow a clerical error caused by the
supervision of the Federal Department of Agriculture to cost many
farmers their livelihood and impose on others such a Draconian burden.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the
committee for their willingness to work with me to ensure that our
local farmers are not punished for a bureaucratic mistake.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that I
appreciate the difficulty he has been going through in Erie County,
Pennsylvania. He has been trying to get this issue resolved, and we
think we can do it legislatively in the bill.
CBO would not score this at a cost, and so I am glad to accept the
amendment and appreciate the gentleman's willingness to try to work
with us on this issue and hope it comes to now a positive resolution.
Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 13 offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), amendment No. 62 offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and amendment No. 52 offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Boswell

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100,
noes 323, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 363]

AYES--100

Bartlett
Bereuter
Blagojevich
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Ehlers
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank
Gephardt
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Herger
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Udall (NM)
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--323

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Otter

NOT VOTING--6

Engel
Houghton
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Reyes
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1431

Messrs. WALSH, GORDON, TOOMEY, BOEHNER, McKEON, CALLAHAN, HYDE,
TIBERI, GREENWOOD, OXLEY, BARTON of Texas, BECERRA, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms.
HART, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOLT, BROWN of Ohio, SANDERS, RAMSTAD, STRICKLAND, LEWIS of
Georgia, MOORE, OLVER, FARR of California, HALL of Texas, WEINER,
DICKS, Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. WATERS, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 363, I had a
hearing/press coverage with the Ambassador of Pakistan re: Women and
children refugees migrating from Afghanistan. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

[[Page H6236]]

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Traficant

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 5, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 364]

AYES--418

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--5

Armey
Dreier
Kolbe
McDermott
Stark

NOT VOTING--7

Engel
Houghton
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Reyes
Saxton
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1440

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 364, I was
detained due to a hearing/press coverage with the Ambassador to the
U.S. from Pakistan re: Women and children refugees migrating from
Afghanistan. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 365]

AYES--187

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goss
Green (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Rahall
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Young (FL)

NOES--238

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr

[[Page H6237]]

Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiberi
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Engel
Houghton
Mollohan
Reyes
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1451

Mr. Blagojevich changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Green of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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. 2646) to
provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2011, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________