[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 133 (Friday, October 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6407-H6411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2646.
{time} 1200
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
October 4, 2001, amendment No. 34 printed in the Congressional Record
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had been withdrawn.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
may be offered except one pro forma amendment each offered by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or
their designees for the purpose of debate.
There being no further amendments in order under the order of the
House, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute,
as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, during my service in Congress, I have
consistently opposed agricultural welfare programs. This Farm Bill, for
the most part, represents business-as-usual for our nation's heavily-
subsidized farmers. It's unfortunate to know that at a time of such
advances in every other area of our lives, our agriculture sector has
all the sophistication of a Soviet commune.
But there is something to smile about, because this Farm Bill
contains one vital reform: the abolition of the federal peanut quota
program. This program is truly a relic of the Great Depression, and
today it's put on notice that its days are numbered.
The General Accounting Office has found the peanut program provides
substantial benefits to a small number of producers who hold most of
the quota, restricts peanut production by other farmers, and increases
consumer costs by between $300 million and $500 million annually.
For years, I've had a hard time understanding why our government
favors one group of American peanut farmers--those who own quotas--over
other American farmers who don't own this privilege. This program harms
so many for the benefit of such a select few.
My partner in reform, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, and I have always
maintained that it was not our intention to pull the rug out from under
our nation's peanut farmers. Rather, our goal has always been to bring
peanuts in line with other commodities, and the legislation we
introduced replaced quota restrictions with the same non-recourse loan
system enjoyed by other commodities.
Some of my colleagues may be concerned with the Farm Bill's approach,
which shifts the burden from consumers to taxpayers.
I agree this compromise isn't perfect, but it does meet two essential
criteria we've set for reform. First, and most important, it repeals
the quota system. This is the key to making the peanut industry more
market-oriented, providing a level playing field for farmers, and
promoting international trade.
Second, as GAO confirmed in correspondence I will submit for the
record, this bill ``Would essentially bring the peanut program in line
with other commodity programs.''
Why is this important? Because taking peanuts off a separate track
will ultimately make it easier to enact future reforms. It also exposes
the hidden costs of the existing program by putting it ``on the
books.''
There are still some concerns I have with what we're accomplishing
today. First, this legislation compensates quota holders for the loss
of their asset, which I must confess I think is fair. While those of us
who want reform are willing to accept this provision, it is only under
the understanding that the Chairman shares our commitment to let it
expire after five years specified in this bill.
Second, at a cost of $3.5 billion over 10 years, these reforms will
come at some expense. With a rapidly shrinking budget surplus and
tremendous needs in other areas, we are going to have to reexamine
whether this is the best use of taxpayers' dollars.
Finally, I'm concerned about findings by the GAO that several of the
new subsidies for peanuts may be identified as ``trade distorting''
under the 1994 Uruguay Round of trade talks. If we expect other nations
to lower their trade barriers, we need to ensure we're not erecting
barriers of our own.
Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate on this bill, I'm going to
continue to express reservations about our overall agriculture policy.
But at this moment, I want to commend the Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Combest, for bringing us closer that we've ever been to
ending the Byzantine system of price supports for peanuts.
I would also request unanimous consent to submit for the
Congressional Record a September 26 letter from the General Accounting
Office reviewing the peanut title of this Farm Bill.
United States General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2001.
Hon. Christopher Shays,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
House of Representatives.
Subject Peanut Program: Potential Effects of Proposed Farm
Bill on Producers, Consumers, Government, and Peanut
Imports and Exports.
The current federal peanut program, administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to support
producers' incomes while ensuring an ample supply of
domestically produced peanuts. To accomplish these goals, the
program controls the domestic supply of peanuts and
guarantees producers a minimum price for their crops. This
price substantially exceeds the price of peanuts in world
markets. The program uses two mechanisms to control the
domestic supply of peanuts: (1) a national quota on the
number of pounds that can be sold for edible consumption
domestically and (2) import restrictions. While anyone can
grow peanuts, only producers holding quota, either through
ownership or rental of farmland, may sell their peanuts
domestically, as ``quota'' peanuts. Generally, all other
production, referred to as ``additional'' peanuts, must be
exported or crushed for oil and meal.
[[Page H6408]]
The program protects producers' incomes though a two-tiered
system that sets minimum support prices for quota and for
additional peanuts. Producers of quota peanuts are guaranteed
a support price of $610 per-ton, called the ``quota loan
rate.'' Producers of additional peanuts are guaranteed a
lower support price of $132 per-ton, called the ``additional
loan rate.'' Producers may sell their peanuts at or above
these loan rates, or they may place their peanuts under loan
with USDA and have the government sell them. This program,
while long-standing, has been criticized by GAO and others
because, among other things, it provides substantial benefits
to a relatively small number of producers who hold most of
the quota, generally restricts nonquota holders from
producing peanuts for the U.S. domestic market, and increases
consumers' cost. The program is, however, designed to operate
generally at ``no-net cost'' to the government.
Additionally, since the $610 per-ton quota loan rate is
substantially higher than the estimated world price--$321
to $462 per-ton from 1996 through 2000--the quota loan
rate provides incentives for exporting countries to
maximize the quantity of peanuts the U.S. allows to be
imported under recent trade agreements. These imports
could displace domestically produced peanuts that
otherwise would enter U.S. food marketing channels.
To address these and other concerns about the peanut
program, you asked that we review its structure and
operations under the 1996 Farm Bill, and its impacts on
producers, consumers, the federal government, and imports and
exports of peanuts. However, on July 27, 2001, before we
completed our review, the House Committee on Agriculture
approved the 2002 Farm Bill, for 2002 through 2011 (the Farm
Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646). If enacted, this bill would
fundamentally alter the peanut program's structure by, among
other things, eliminating the national poundage quota and
allowing peanut buyers to purchase domestically produced
peanuts at the prevailing market price. Because of your
interest in making the program more market-oriented, you
subsequently asked us to report on the potential impact of
this bill on producers, consumers, the federal government,
and imports and exports of peanuts.
major changes to the peanut program under the house committee on
agriculture's bill
Beginning in 2002, and for the next 10 years, the bill
passed by the House Committee on Agriculture would eliminate
the national poundage quota and replace the current two-
tiered price system with several new support mechanisms for
peanut quota owners and producers. These changes would
essentially bring the peanut program in line with other
commodity programs. The bill would establish the following
new types of support for peanut producers:
A ``counter-cyclical'' payment. This payment would provide
financial assistance to producers when prices are below a
legislatively established target price. Peanut producers
would receive a payment based on the difference between a
USDA-calculated price and a $480 target price--known as a
counter-cyclical payment. The payment amount would be
calculated on 85 percent of a producer's peanut acres and the
average yield for crop years 1998 through 2001. A producer's
production during these years would be the producer's base
production. Since the payment would be calculated using
historic yield and acreage, producers would receive it even
if they choose not to plant peanuts. According to the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the counter-cyclical
payments would cost an estimated $1.24 billion in government
expenditures over the life of the farm bill.
A ``fixed, decoupled'' payment. This payment would provide
peanut producers with compensation similar to the production
flexibility contract payments provided for other crops, such
as cotton and wheat, in the 1996 Farm Bill (Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996). Producers
with base production would receive support--known as a fixed,
decoupled payment--in the amount of $36 per-ton on the base
production. This support is called ``decoupled'' because it
would be paid whether or not a producer chooses to grow
peanuts and regardless of market prices. Since the payment
would be calculated using historic yield and acreage,
producers would receive it even if they choose not to plant
peanuts. According to CBO, the fixed, decoupled payments
would cost an estimated $0.63 billion over the life of the
farm bill.
A marketing assistance loan. This loan would provide
producers with interim financial assistance at harvest, when
prices are usually lower than at other times of the marketing
year. Producers could pledge their stored peanuts as
collateral for up to 9 months at a loan rate of $350 per-ton.
Producers would then repay the loan at a rate that is the
lesser of (1) $350 per-ton plus interest or (2) a USDA-
calculated loan repayment rate, which was not specified in
the bill. If producers were to redeem the loan at less than
the loan amount, they would realize a marketing loan gain.
Alternatively, producers could receive an amount equivalent
to the marketing assistance loan gain, referred to as a loan
deficiency payment, by agreeing to forgo a loan. Producers
would also be able to forfeit their peanuts to the government
as payment for their loan, regardless of the market value of
peanuts at the time. According to CBO, the marketing loan
payments will cost an estimated $0.44 billion over the life
of the farm bill.
A ``buy-out'' payment. Quota owners would receive
compensation for the lost asset value of their quota. This
``buy-out'' payment would be made in five annual installments
of $200 per-ton during fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The
payment would be based on the quota owners' 2001 quota.
According to CBO, payments would total $1.18 billion to quota
owners for the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006.
All peanut producers would be eligible to receive a
marketing assistance loan or a loan deficiency payment.
However, only those who produced peanuts during crop years
1998 through 2001 (the base production period) would be
eligible to receive counter-cyclical and fixed, decoupled
payments.
all peanut producers would benefit under the house committee on
agriculture's bill
New and existing peanut producers would benefit from the
support mechanisms contained in the House Committee bill.
Table 1 shows the estimated amounts producers would receive
from peanut sales and government support under the current
peanut program compared with the House Committee bill.
Because the peanut provisions of the House Committee bill
would essentially establish minimum guaranteed prices--a
target price of $480 per-ton for base production and a $350
per-ton marketing assistance loan for all other production--
the amounts shown in the table generally represent the
minimum amount producers could expect to receive for their
production.
The table assumes that a peanut producer has 100 acres
under production, a yield of 2,500 pounds per acre, and
receives a market price of $325 per-ton. These production and
yield assumptions are based on national averages contained in
USDA's 1997 Census of Agriculture. The $325 market price is
an estimate based on conversations with shellers and area
marketing associations in August 2001.
TABLE 1.--MINIMUM ESTIMATED AMOUNTS PRODUCER WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED PEANUT PROGRAMS, ON
100 ACRES OF PRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 percent quota 100 percent additional
Types of program supports producer with base producer with base New producer without
production production base production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current program:
Quota support price........... \1\ $76,250............. Not applicable.......... Not applicable
Additional support price...... Not applicable.......... \2\ $16,500............. \2\ $16,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total amount................ $76,250................. $16,500................. $16,500
=============================================================================
Proposed program:
Market revenue................ \2\ $40,625............. \3\ $40,625............. \3\ $40,625
Counter-cyclical.............. \4\ $9,988.............. \4\ $9,988.............. Not applicable
Fixed, decoupled.............. \5\ $3,825.............. \5\ $3,825.............. Not applicable
Marketing assistance loan gain \6\ $3,125.............. \6\ $3,125.............. \6\ $3,125
Lost asset value.............. \7\ $25,000............. Not applicable.......... Not applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total amount................ $82,563................. $57,563................. $43,750
=============================================================================
Difference between current and $6,313.................. $41,063................. $27,250
proposed program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents the product of the $610 per-ton quota support price times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times
100 acres. Because this is considered a ``no-net cost'' program to the government, this is paid by the
consumer.
\2\ Represents the minimum amount an additional or new peanut producer would receive, calculated as the product
of $132 per-ton additional loan rate times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres. However, these
producers may receive higher amounts if they sell their peanuts for export rather than placing them under
loan.
\3\ Represents the $325 per-ton market price times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres.
\4\ Represents the $480 per-ton target price minus the $350 loan rate and the $36 per-ton fixed, decoupled
payment times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres times 85 percent. Producers would receive this
payment even if they choose not to plant peanuts since it is calculated using historic yield and acreage.
\5\ Represents the $36 per-ton fixed, decoupled payment times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres
times 85 percent. Producers would receive this payment even if they choose not to plant peanuts since it is
calculated using historic yield and acreage.
\6\ Represents either a marketing loan gain or a loan deficiency payment. It is the product of the difference
between the $350 per-ton marketing assistance loan and the $325 per-ton market price times 1.25 tons (2,500
pounds per acre) times 100 acres. If the market price decreases, these government support costs would increase
to make up the difference between the lower market price and the marketing assistance loan rate.
\7\ Represents the product of the $200 per-ton compensation for the lost asset value of quota times 1.25 tons
(2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres. This ``buy-out'' payment is only paid during fiscal years 2002-2006.
Note.--Under the proposed program, producers with base production could also receive support as a new producer
if they expand production.
Source: GAO's analysis of USDA's data and the House Committee bill.
[[Page H6409]]
As the table shows, most of the government's payments under
the House Committee bill would go to quota peanut producers
with base production, followed by payments to additional
peanut producers with base production. This is because quota
holders and additional producers would be eligible to receive
the counter-cyclical payment, the fixed, decoupled payment,
and a marketing assistance loan payment. In addition, quota
owners would be compensated for the value of their lost
asset.
Nevertheless, current additional and new peanut producers
potentially gain the most under the House Committee bill
because they could (1) market their peanuts in the domestic
edible market and (2) receive a minimum guaranteed price of
$350 per-ton under the marketing assistance loan. For
example, as the table shows, producers of additional peanuts
with base production on 100 acres would have been guaranteed
$16,500 per year under the existing program, compared with
$57,563 under the proposed bill.
Peanut production would be expected to increase to the
extent that the House Committee bill would provide increased
returns to producers that are higher than the returns they
would have received under the old program or that are higher
relative to other commodities that they produce. If
production increases, it is likely to cause market prices for
peanuts to fall and government payments to increase.
Consumers Should Pay Less for Peanuts, but the Government Would Pay
More
Under the House Committee on Agriculture's bill, the burden
of supporting peanut producers would shift from consumers to
the government. Consumers--defined as shellers,
manufacturers, and the general public--should pay less for
domestically produced peanuts because the proposed
legislation would eliminate the $610 quota support price,
which is substantially higher than the estimated $321 to $462
per-ton world price over the past 5 years.
While consumers should benefit under the House Committee
bill, government costs would increase. For example, the
current peanut program is intended to operate with no net
cost to the government, while the House Committee bill would
provide direct government support payments to peanut
producers. CBO estimates that these direct support payments
would cost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years. This cost
estimate includes counter-cyclical and fixed, decoupled
payments, marketing assistance loans, and the buy-out
payments for the lost asset value of the quota. To the
extent to which producers expand production beyond CBO's
estimates, increases in government costs could be greater
than estimated.
proposed program provisions may be considered trade distorting but
should decrease incentives for imports
Several of the new support mechanisms contained in the
House Committee bill may be identified as ``trade
distoring''--altering free trade of peanuts--under the 1994
Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. For example, gains
resulting from loan deficiency payments and marketing
assistance loans for other crops, such as corn and cotton,
have previously been identified as trade distorting by USDA.
Our obligation under the Uruguay Round Agreement is to hold
the amount of such U.S. trade-distorting government support
below $19.1 billion annually by 2000. In 1998, USDA notified
the World Trade Organization that 12 commodities received
support identified as trade distorting, but the amount
remained within the cap. Negotiations are under way, however,
to further reduce trade-distorting government support.
Although some of the new support mechanisms may be
considered trade distorting, to the extent to which they lead
to lower domestic peanut prices, these supports should reduce
incentives for imports, primarily from Argentina and Mexico.
According to peanut shellers, domestically produced peanuts
would be purchased at prices that are less than the current
$610 per-ton quota loan rate. The shellers also hope that a
lower U.S. peanut price will help them increase exports.
agency comments
We received oral comments on a draft of this report from
USDA's Farm Service Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service
and the Economic Research Service and the U.S. Trade
Representative. They generally agreed with the substance of
the report and provided technical and clarifying comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate. FSA officials also
informed us there are certain items in the House Committee
bill that will require technical clarification. USDA has sent
a letter to the House Agricultural Committee requesting
guidance and clarification of these issues and was awaiting a
response from the Committee as of the date of this letter.
scope and methodology
In order to respond to your request, we obtained and
analyzed the Farm Security Act of 2001, testimony provided by
producer and industry officials to the House Committee on
Agriculture in June 2001 and the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in July 2001, the World
Trade Organization and the USDA Economic Research Service
reports on domestic supports, the USDA's 1997 Census of
Agriculture, and other information pertaining to domestic and
international peanut production. We also interviewed
representatives from USDA, peanut area marketing
associations, peanut shellers, and a product manufacturer
concerning the bill's provisions and potential impacts. To
estimate the minimum amount of producer receipts, we reviewed
the applicable provisions of the House Committee bill,
obtained and examined data on peanut production, yield, and
price.
We conducted our work from July through August 2001, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
We will provide copies of this report to the congressional
committees with jurisdiction over farm programs; the
Honorable Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture;
Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative; and
other interested parties. The letter will also be available
on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or Assistant Director Robert C. Summers
at 404-679-1839. Other key contributors to this report were
Carol Bray, Mary Denigan-Macauley, and John C. Smith.
Lawrence J. Dyckman,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2646,
the Farm Security Act of 2001. Today's farm bill is the result of two
years' work by Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm.
On September 18, 1999, eight other members of the House Agriculture
Committee, Republicans and Democrats, came to Hutchinson, Kansas for a
field hearing on the State of the Farm Economy. The hearing came at a
time when Congress was poised to act on its second emergency assistance
bill in as many years.
With the passage of a disaster package in October of 1998, the
Chairman of the committee saw it appropriate to come to Kansas the next
year and begin to hear from farmers and ranchers on suggested changes
for farm programs. For the next two years, farmers continued to
struggle, and Congress continued to respond with additional emergency
spending bills to help producers cope with the sustained period of
depressed commodity prices.
During this time, the House Agriculture Committee was not satisfied
with simply passing disaster bills with no end in sight. The Chairman
of the Committee took the lead in getting new ideas from farmers,
ranchers, economists, and other policy experts concerned about U.S.
agriculture.
Now, over two years and 40 hearings later, we are here to consider
the House version of a new farm bill, H.R. 2646--the Farm Security Act.
The bill before the House today represents a bipartisan compromise,
worked through the full committee process. The concepts of the bill
were initially released as a draft for members and producers to comment
on the proposal. Legislation was drafted, a two-day mark-up was held,
and on August 2nd, the Farm Security Act was reported favorably by
voice vote of the full House Agriculture Committee.
CONSERVATION
This bill responds to producers, consumers, and the American public
as a whole. First, I would like to speak to an area that has recently
been discusses at length: conservation.
As the Vice-Chairman of the subcommittee on Conservation, I am proud
to support this bill. Originally, I introduced my own version of a
conservation title, H.R. 1938--The Conservation Enhancement Act. I am
pleased that many of the provisions of my bill are included in the Farm
Security Act. The bill includes an 80 percent funding increase in
conservation spending and gives the largest increase to a program for
working lands that remain in production agriculture, the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
The EQIP program is instrumental in protecting watersheds, improving
environmental practices, and addressing some of the most difficult
environmental problems we face today. However, as we heard in hearings
from producers and conservation groups, EQIP can't work if it doesn't
have adequate funding or flexibility. This bill goes a long way to
address both of those important issues.
For small producers, we heard that contracts were too long to be
practical and that financial assistance was not made available until
all the work, and costs, were already paid by the farmer. For farmers
with extremely limited resources, the best intentions can not overcome
economic realities of farming. In this bill, we address those issues by
allowing costs to be reimbursed earlier and reducing the length of
contracts to allow more small farmers to participate.
We also heard from livestock producers about their need to access
technical assistance and other the resources available to meet the
demands of an increasingly regulated environment. This bill reserves 50
percent of the EQIP funds for livestock producers. If we truly want to
fix the problems that exist today, we must allow livestock producers to
access the programs that are designed to help address environmental
problems.
In addition, the bill creates a water conservation program. While we
often focus on water quality issues, for many parts of the
[[Page H6410]]
country, water conservation is the first step that must be taken to
improve the environment.
There are many other provisions of the Conservation title, but I just
want to touch on a couple of programs to help explain to my colleagues
the sheer size of the work farmers and ranchers are doing today.
The Conservation Reserve Program is one of the most important
programs at the United States Department of Agriculture, in terms of
reducing water and wind erosion. According to the USDA, each acre of
CRP reduces erosion by 19 tons per year. The program has also been
extremely successful in enhancing wildlife habitat for many species.
Under this bill, CRP is expanded to 39.2 million acres. 39.2 million
acres is hard for most of us to conceive. My own yard is about 4 tenths
of an acre, and for my lawnmower, that is plenty.
However, the amount of land under the protection of the Conservation
Reserve Program is truly enormous.If CRP was a state, it would be the
largest state East of the Mississippi. If the area covered by CRP ran
along the eastern seaboard, it would entirely cover Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware. For those of you
out west, CRP is almost as big as the entire state of Washington.
The Committee bill also increases wetlands conservation by adding an
additional 1.5 million acres to the Wetlands Reserve Program. This
increase brings the total land in this program up to 2.5 million acres.
The total amount of land protected under these two programs and removed
from production agriculture is over 41 million acres--an area almost as
large as the state of Oklahoma.
You will likely hear today that we need more conservation spending,
and at times, it is hard to find a reason to say no, but within the
Committee we worked hard to balance demands with the resources
available. Conservation and the protection of the environment are
important priorities, but they are not the only issues before the
committee. There are nine titles in this bill, and each one represents
an important part of our policies to help rural America.
FARM PROGRAMS
Finally, I would like to speak directly on the changes made to farm
programs. Farmers and ranchers are experiencing difficult times, but
they like several features of the current farm program.
The proposed farm bill retains the flexibility farmers need. The bill
retains a market-oriented structure that allows farmers to decide what
to plant. The bill also answers the single largest concern we heard
from producers throughout the hearings of the last two years--the need
for a counter cyclical program.
While no single consensus from all the producers was developed, the
Committee heard, loud and clear, that some type of a counter cyclical
assistance program was needed. When prices fall dramatically, there
does need to be a safety net, and it should not take an act of Congress
to kick in. This bill provides farmers with a simple, effective counter
cyclical program.
Kansas net farm income dropped by 39.9 percent, last year. This is
the fourth largest drop of net income from agriculture of any state in
the nation. Clearly, this bill is needed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Conservation and farm programs are two of the largest titles of this
farm bill, but there area 7 others and all 9 titles have been carefully
crafted to address the concerns we heard from constituents across
America during our committee hearings.
This is a balanced bill that continues important programs and create
new ones to address emerging needs, while still remaining within budget
constraints.
The bill is important for this nation's farmers and ranchers, it is
important for all of us concerned about a clean environment, and it is
important security and safety of this nation's food supply.
Mr. Chairman, with these points in mind, I urge all of my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill is an opportunity to help
American farmers meet the challenges of a new century. We are the
strongest farming nation in the world, with abundant food at reasonable
prices and we export far more than we import. However, this comes at a
very high price. Our environment, despite some impressive improvements,
still suffers. The structure of our current farming industry uses too
much water, generates too much pollution, and too much of our best
agricultural land is lost due to sprawl, erosion, and misuse. Smaller
farmers continue to be forced to sell while entry into the business is
prohibitively expensive and difficult.
Perverse programs mean more farmers are dependent on ever-increasing
subsidies. The complex web of loans, credits, quotas, and direct
payments is expensive for Americans both as taxpayers and consumers.
The support system tends to obscure financial impacts while it distorts
decisions farmers make regarding type and quantity of crops, often to
the detriment of the long-term productivity of the land and the health
of the environment. At a time when we seek to open foreign markets to
more American production, we are still sheltering ours in ways that
violate the spirit, if not the letter, of our own trade agreements.
The United States has been able to survive and some farmers thrive
under this system because we had seemingly inexhaustible supplies of
fertile land, abundant water, tolerance for cutting environmental
corners, and generous financial support. That world is changing. Our
environmental standards are getting stronger. Due to the threats of
sprawl, water pollution, pesticides, fertilizer, and the excesses of
factory farms, the public will never tolerate backsliding.
Environmental standards will only get stronger still.
Past practices and government policies have too often stressed our
water supplies and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Water systems
are depleted far beyond their ability to replenish supply. The
inevitable result is more controversy and conflict between competing
users. The sad plight of the Klamath Basin in the Pacific Northwest is
one example of an emerging pattern all over the West, which will only
get worse over time.
American agriculture and our public that depends on it can do better.
We must begin now to shift from subsidies that encourage production of
some crops, regardless of need, to the protection of land and the
people who farm. Paying the farmer to be able to do the right thing is
the most cost-effective solution. It is also the only solution that is
sustainable for the environment and the taxpayer. Over the course of
the next 10 years, we must implement this new vision of agriculture for
the new century. In the meantime, we must protect the farms and farmers
who choose to take advantage of this opportunity.
Until we have a bill that makes this transition, I must withhold my
support.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Burr of North Carolina) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 248, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 291,
nays 120, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 371]
YEAS--291
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
[[Page H6411]]
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--120
Armey
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett
Bass
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Conyers
Coyne
Crane
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Eshoo
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gephardt
Goss
Green (WI)
Harman
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lee
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Paul
Petri
Pitts
Quinn
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Simmons
Slaughter
Stark
Stearns
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Weiner
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Bachus
Baker
Burton
Callahan
Cox
Duncan
Gibbons
Houghton
Kilpatrick
Lipinski
McCarthy (MO)
Mollohan
Olver
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Waxman
Wexler
{time} 1225
Messrs. Shays, Quinn, Honda and McNulty and Mrs. Morella changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. McKinney changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 371,
final passage of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to District business which required
my attention, I am unable to be present for final passage of H.R. 2646,
The Farm Security Act, rollcall No. 371. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye.''
____________________