Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 53 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 53 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2022-H2057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 403

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 403 waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Adopting this rule would allow the full House of Representatives to
consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 2646, the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee approved this rule, which is a
standard rule governing consideration of the conference report.
Before closing, I want to acknowledge my friends and colleagues on
the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest), the chairman, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss),
the subcommittee chairman, who have spent a considerable amount of time
on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule on the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding
me the time.
This rule will waive all points of order against the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2646. This is the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and their staffs for their hard
work on this bipartisan legislation. I also want to express my
appreciation to Senators Harkin and Lugar, chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their tireless efforts as well.
I would also like to single out the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Clayton) and Senator Leahy for their contributions to the bill
and their steadfast work as champions of hungry people in this country
and around the world.
This bill will increase farm program spending by $73.5 billion over
the next 10 years. The measure boosts government subsidies for major
crops, while at the same time it directs more conservation payments to
small farmers. The measure also provides funding for trade promotion,
nutrition programs, for rural development, and agriculture research.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful that this legislation includes the
Bill Emerson-Mickey Leland Hunger Fellows Program. This is a fitting
tribute to our late colleagues, and it honors their legacy by training
leaders in the fight against hunger.
I am pleased that the measure provides $100 million in fiscal year
2003 for the Global Food for Education initiative, and I am
particularly gratified that this legislation authorizes the George
McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program. This initiative, commonly known as the Global School
Lunch Program, will continue and expand the good work of the Global
Food for Education Initiative.
The Global School Lunch Program was inspired in a bipartisan fashion
by former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, and it began as a
pilot program in July of 2000. Under the bill we are considering today,
this initiative will make a real difference in the lives of tens of
millions of children all over the world. The program will feed not only
hungry children, but it promotes education abroad, in addition to
assisting American farmers.
This program is already doing a wonderful job encouraging children to
attend school, especially girls. One example is in Pakistan, near the
border with Afghanistan. Partnered with the World Food Programme, the
Global School Lunch Program provides families with cooking oil if their
daughters go to school. This is boosting attendance and improving
performance; and important to our own national security, this program
keeps the kids away from the madrahsas, schools funded by radical
Islamic militants where students are fed a diet of hate for America.
Because of the Global School Lunch Program, the students learn that
America cares about them.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report includes an amendment I offered on
the House floor which was accepted by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and adopted by the House. The amendment allows greater
flexibility to use assistance funds for transporting food where it is
needed. This provision will remove a bottleneck which can hinder the
abilities of both the World Food Programme and private charities to
distribute food aid.
In our own country, this measure restores food stamps to legal
immigrants who have lived in the United States for 5 years. This is a
needed change from the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and it was a top
priority of the antihunger community.
The bill provides an overall increase of $6.4 billion for domestic
nutrition programs. This includes increases for the TEFAP program and
the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. These programs do help hungry
people. They put food on the empty plates of Americans in need.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my concern about the
future of international food aid. This bill does increase slightly the
Food for Progress program. However, if the administration follows
through with its stated intentions to reduce surplus commodity
donations through section 416(b), this will amount to a drastic cut in
overall food assistance. This could result in a loss of almost $1
billion to feed hungry people next year.
This is totally unacceptable anytime, but it is even more tragic when
the serious threat of famine looms in southern Africa, and the
situation in war-torn Afghanistan is still shaky at best. I hope the
administration will use the flexibility it has to ensure food aid is
not cut.
American farmers are the most productive in the world, and our
compassion is second to none. We need to strengthen that bond between
our generosity and abundance and the outstretched arms and empty
stomachs of the world's hungry people.
This bill is a step in that direction. We have a long journey still
ahead to end hunger in our world. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1015

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. With respect to this bill before us today, there
is no doubt that the bill is imperfect. One could argue it spends too
much. One could argue it should probably do more to reform some of our
USDA programs. But let me say this: In the area of dairy, this is a
historic win for dairy farmers all across America.
In my home area in Wisconsin, we are losing some 3 to 4 dairy farms
each and every day. There are 3 reasons why this bill will help. Number
1, it creates a new countercyclical program for dairy; a program I hope
never goes into effect. We all hope dairy prices remain strong. But in
the event the dairy economy crashes, as it did a few years ago, this
will give them a safety net. This is money they can take to the bank.
Number 2, this program is national, not regional. For years our
policies

[[Page H2023]]

have pit farmer against farmer, States against State, region against
region. And we will still do that in the area of milk marketing orders,
but with respect to the new countercyclical program, we break away from
that. This is a historic step towards a new national policy.
And number 3, this program pays out without regard to end use of
milk. Even though the trigger price for this countercyclical program is
pegged to Class I, the payouts will go to all classes of milk whether
it remains fluid or whether it goes into manufactured milk products.
There is more work to be done on the dairy front, to be sure, but
this is a great step forwards. I congratulate the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and all the conferees. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the bill.
This is a big win for the dairy farmers in Wisconsin.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, for the last 68 days, I have joined
my House colleagues, 11 of them, to work on resolving differences in a
farm bill between a bill we passed last summer and a bill passed a few
months ago by the United States Senate.
During those 68 days, I have come to greatly admire and respect the
leadership in our Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest), our chairman, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), our ranking member. But why have we made this effort? Why
does it matter? I think the answer is because we care about the future
of our farmers and our ranchers, and we care about the future of the
communities in which they live.
There is absolutely no doubt but that the times in agriculture
country are tough. They are not getting better, they are getting worse.
The profit margins are squeezed.
Last month, I conducted 66 town hall meetings from A to Z, Almena to
Zurich. Record low prices for weather conditions paint a terribly bleak
picture for our farm families. This week's headlines in the Kansas
press: ``High Input Costs, Lower Livestock Income Cut Kansas Farm
Income 28.6 Percent''; ``Bankers Indicate That Farm-Related Businesses
Continue To Struggle''; and ``Falling Prices Mean Big Losses for Cattle
Feeders.''
The average farm income for a Kansas farmer totaled less than $28,000
per farm. Total farm expenses increased 7 percent. The average debt for
a farmer increased 34 percent. Farmers used to spend $81 for every
dollar's worth of product they sold. Today it is $87. Cattle prices are
down, meaning that our producers have lost $120 on every animal they
sell. For a 10,000-head feed yard in Ashland, Kansas, that feeder has
just lost $1.2 million.
These are the stories I have heard over the last month in 66
locations across my district. It is time for us to step forward.
I have a farm bill, a sale bill, that a constituent sent me,
indicating that her neighbor was selling out the farm because they
could not make it. And the note was, I have a young man who wants to
take over my farm.
This is why we need a farm bill, so that that next generation has the
opportunity to be farmers, to feed the world. It is about maintaining
the safest and most abundant supply and having our consumers receive
the safest food supply at the grocery store. It is about preserving our
environment for future generations, conserving our natural resources,
protecting our water quality and air. It is about helping rural
communities sustain their economies. It is about ensuring adequate
nutrition for all Americans, especially our children. But for Kansas it
is about avoiding the headlines that say, ``On the Auction Block:
Farmers Getting Out, Putting Items, Land Up For Sell During Tough
Economic Times.''
This bill is valuable to the Kansas economy and it is valuable in our
efforts to keep farmers on the land, to keep shoppers on our main
streets, and to keep children in our schools. If we do not act now,
next year will be too late for many family farms.
The wheat crop is in the ground. In just over a month we will begin
harvest in my State, and planning is under way for our other crops.
Farmers need details of a farm bill sooner, not later, and I urge my
colleagues to support this farm bill and to vote for the conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Kansas press article I
referred to earlier:

[From the Garden City Telegram, Apr. 11, 2002]

On the Auction Block

Getting out: Farmers putting items, land up for sell during tough
economic times

(By Kathy Hanks)

Gary Brooks is sifting through a collection of nuts, bolts
and used tractor parts deciding what to sell Saturday at his
farm auction.
Brooks and his wife, Carla, have farmed in the Healy area
for 37 years. And though he describes the upcoming sale as
``bittersweet,'' the Brookes are ready to get out of farming
and make a life change.
``We can see the handwriting on the wall. We've been pretty
small farmers, and we just can't get enough for what we
raise,'' Brooks said. ``My machinery is older, and it takes
about two years of crops to fix something that breaks.''
The couple has made some major decisions in the past
months.
``If your mind is made up, then it's a positive thing. If
someone else is telling you that you have to get out, then
that's sad,'' Brooks said.
They had a land auction earlier this year; selling about
three-and-a-half quarters of ground. After Saturday's sale,
the couple plans to move to Hays, where they will be close to
children and grandchildren.
``I don't know what kind of job I'll get, but I sure don't
want to work on commission; I've been doing that for years,''
he said. ``I want a job with a regular paycheck. I have a
degree in botany, but I don't know what kind of work I can
find with that.''
Brooks, however, said he is not too concerned.
``This is our decision. We'll walk away with a little
money. And I'll be grinning all the way,'' he said.
Every weekend in April, Russell Berning, owner of Berning
Auction, Marilenthal, has a farm auction scheduled
somewhere in western Kansas.
``I wouldn't call these forced sales. I'd call them
encouraged sales. The owners can see there's no future, and
they want to get out while they still have something left,''
Berning said.
He has been in the auction business since the late 1980s,
beginning just as the bad economic times and forced sales
were ending.
Though farm sales are on the increase, he said what he is
observing today is nothing compared to the 1980s, when many
farm families were forced out of operation.
``At least for now, the mood is more of relief to be
getting out of farming,'' Berning said.
There are no ``Penney Auctions'' taking place where the
neighbors come and buy your land and machinery for pennies,
then return it to you.
Instead, your neighbor is more likely to buy your ground.
``In western Kansas, we are seeing dry land sell for
upwards of $725 per acre. People are buying the land. There
are some guys still willing to take a chance with low
interest rates,'' Berning said. ``And there is the old money
farmers who have been on the land for generations. That's
where most of the sales are coming from.''
Berning described the typical farmer selling his land as in
his 50s and wanting to do something different with his life.
``I know some guys who are going into the insurance
business, working as federal crop adjusters. That's a job
where they still will be able to use their knowledge and
still be involved with the farming aspect,'' he said. ``I see
them selling their land and looking forward to doing
something different.''
According to Berning, several of his recent sales have been
in the Healy area of Lane County.
``They have had some dryer years in the past then some
areas around them. It has just hit them earlier. If we don't
get any more moisture, and prices don't change, we're going
to see more of this. I think we're just on the verge right
now,'' Berning said.
Along with land, he is selling a lot of farm equipment.
``A lot of what I'm selling is good, modern equipment in
good shape, that is bringing in good money,'' Berning said.
``The older, smaller equipment has taken a significant drop
in price.''
At Scott Auction, Garden City, Kent Scott was observing a
similar situation with farm auctions.
``I'm not seeing an increase in forced sales. Instead, I
see farmers trying to get rid of things on their depreciation
schedule that they have quit using on the farm,'' Scott said.
``They may be cutting back their operation because of
economics. Prices are not good. So, some are selling out now
when they still have their equity.''
Berning agrees with that scenario.
``I have seen farmers selling their farm equipment and then
just look for other work. They want to sell their land while
they still

[[Page H2024]]

have some money left to start a new life.'' Berning said.
``Things aren't bad right now. It could get worse. And they
do appear that they will get worse before they get better.''
In the southwest corner of the state, Jim Carrithers, owner
of Carrithers Auction of Johnson City, said he is not seeing
a noticeable change in farm sales.
``I can't seen any increase in farm sales with farmers
going out of business,'' said Carrithers, who conducts
auctions in southwest Kansas, eastern Colorado and the
Oklahoma panhandle. ``We have always had farmers who made the
decision to get out. They can see they aren't getting
anywhere and would prefer to work for a company with
insurance benefits.
``I am seeing just an average year, no different than what
I've observed in the past 30 years of being in the business.
Farmers just need some rain and a better farm program.

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who has been a great
representative. We are going to miss her, and she is a great fighter
for this issue.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and this Congress is going to miss the gentleman from Ohio as
well, but he is going to serve in another great capacity.
I wanted to say that after almost 2 years, the House and the Senate
have finally come together on a farm bill, and the rule that we will
vote on is a rule that is appropriate and I will vote for the rule.
Is this farm bill a perfect farm bill? Absolutely not. Is it a farm
bill that will help many farmers? It indeed will. Are there areas I
wish it had gone further? There are. Are there areas where I think it
went too far? Yes. As in all legislation, there are winners and losers
in this. But all in all, this farm bill speaks to providing a safety
net that is critical.
I want to spend just a moment saying it does do things that we would
be very, very proud of. It provides $6.4 billion over the next 10 years
for nutrition. In addition to that, it provides $100 million for global
food services that will provide education and food to a lot of
children, making a difference in their lives, not only to girls, but
families.
When girls learn, their families learn. It has been demonstrated that
when young girls have an education, not only is that education good for
themselves but it is good for the families. So when we indeed provide
food for young children to learn, we are enabling their families to be
more productive and healthy.
I would be remiss not to make mention that this global food program
has been kind of the brainchild of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). They have labored tirelessly. It is
called formally the Dole and McGovern bill. Both of them wanted this
bill.
This is an opportunity for us to share our bounty, to make a
difference in the lives of those we help through our foreign affairs.
This goes a long way to say who we are as human beings; that our
American farmers wish to share their bounty with the people of the rest
of the world.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller).
Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
agriculture welfare bill we will be voting on later this morning.
In 1996, this Congress passed 2 historic pieces of legislation; one
was Welfare Reform and one was the Freedom to Farm. The idea was to get
people less dependent on government, to get people more opportunity and
more freedom. The Welfare Reform bill has been a success. We have
reduced the welfare rolls by 50 percent, but, more importantly, we have
given people the freedom and opportunity for their American dream, to
not have to rely on a check from the Federal Government. And that was
the concept with Freedom to Farm, but it did not work out quite right.
We are just pouring money into the program every year classified as
emergency spending, and now this year we are going to make it all
entitlement spending and make more people dependent on the Federal
Government.
This bill, sadly, goes in the wrong direction, in that it costs more
for the American taxpayer, it costs the American consumer more, and it
is this same reliance on Federal Government handouts that is so
unfortunate. Most of the money goes just to a handful of crops; wheat,
rice, corn, cotton, and soybeans. But it goes into a lot of other
areas, and that is how it gets its widespread support on the floor of
the House. We got rid of wool, mohair, and honey subsidies in 1996, but
they are back. So now the taxpayers are going to subsidize wool,
mohair, and honey.
We have added some things, like small chickpeas, dry peas, and
lentils. I do not know why the Federal Government has to be in this
business. The peanut program, and I like peanuts, but it is going to
be, I think, like a $4 billion cost to the American taxpayers. This
whole bill, they say, is only 77-some billion. But that is on top of
the $100 billion entitlement right there now. So it will cost $170
billion. And if we really look at the true cost of this and base it on
how poorly they estimated the cost in the 1996 bill, we are probably
talking about a $340 billion cost.
A $340 billion bill, and we are trying to find more money for the
Pell grants, the war on terrorism, homeland security, cancer research
and biomedical research. We have a lot of needs for money, but we will
spend $340 billion on this.
Now, what this bill does is it encourages overproduction. Take the
sugar program. We produce too much sugar because we have a program that
encourages too much. Last year, the Federal Government bought $430
million worth of sugar and we are storing it. We are storing it. And
what we will do with this bill is encourage more production so we can
store more sugar. And this is true with wheat, and corn, and cotton,
and rice. All we are going to do is just produce more and more and
store more and more, and the whole thing, in my opinion, will implode.
This hurts the small farmer. Eighty-eight percent of the money goes
to the top 20 percent of the farmers. Bottom 80 percent, the smaller
farmers, only get 12 percent of the money. So I encourage my colleagues
to oppose this.
For liberals, it is good to oppose this because it costs the consumer
more. It costs the consumer more. It is estimated at $2,500 more per
consumer. And the environmental organizations are all opposing this
because it does not do enough for the environment.
For my conservatives, it should be a no-brainer. This just expands
the role of Federal Government and makes people more dependent on the
Federal Government.
And for everyone else, this is just bad economic policy. Because what
we really should believe in this country is to give people more
opportunity and freedom, rather than coming to Washington to beg for a
check and creating yet another new entitlement program.
I think this has gone in the wrong direction, it is unfortunate, and
I hope we can defeat the bill today.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the
conference report and support the rule for the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act crafted by the chairman and ranking member and those on
the committee who did, I think, an excellent job in balancing the needs
for agriculture.
The previous failure of the Freedom to Farm bill failed to live up to
its promise of an adequate safety net for American farmers and,
consequently, year after year Congress was asked to step in and provide
billions of dollars. While this bill is not perfect, it goes a long way
in meeting the needs. I will not go into the details, others will talk
about that as we go on, but I am pleased this conference report does
many of these things.
While there is much to like in this report, North Carolina growers
can be especially pleased that it reaches out and does many of the
things they need. However, we have to understand that compromise is the
cornerstone of successful legislation, and no bill is perfect by
everyone's standards.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield the floor, I would like to engage the
chairman of

[[Page H2025]]

the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs,
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), in a colloquy.
Traveling through North Carolina, the number 1 topic of discussion in
tobacco communities is the growing support for reform in the current
Federal tobacco quota system. Tobacco farmers want to eliminate quotas
so they can grow their crops without paying rent to quota holders,
thereby cutting the costs and making their product more competitive in
the world market. Quota holders are willing to support such reform
provided they are adequately and fairly compensated for the quotas they
now own.
Several different approaches for revamping the program have been
introduced, one by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre),
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill). There is another plan being drafted by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher), and many others will have one in. All have strengths and
weaknesses.

{time} 1030

Now that the work of the Committee on Agriculture on the farm bill is
completed, can we expect the committee to turn its attention to the
crop left behind, the tobacco program?
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) is a strong and tireless advocate for the tobacco growers of
his State, and I understand his interest in the future of the tobacco
program.
The reform of the tobacco program is something that deserves and
requires a great deal of thought and debate. I look forward to holding
hearings in my subcommittee on this topic. I know several members are
interested in this issue, and I can assure the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) that the committee will take a hard and
serious look at the Federal tobacco program later this year.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2001, and I
commend the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
This bill does help us increase clean energy. The bill is great for
Minnesota agriculture and our many renewable energy sources. With six
ethanol plants in my district, I am very familiar with ethanol. Ethanol
is not only a domestic and renewable source of energy, it is oxygen
rich and, therefore, helps gas burn more completely, resulting in
cleaner air for us to breathe.
Another source of renewable and domestic, home-grown energy is
biodiesel, which can be derived from soybean oil which helps diesel oil
burn cleaner. Both ethanol and biodiesel help generate jobs in rural
communities, and expand demand for our farmers' products; and I am
proud Minnesota has played a leadership role in both of these. I am a
strong supporter of expanding both the use of ethanol and biodiesel.
Wind energy is also an important energy source in my district. The
Buffalo Ridge in southwest Minnesota is one of the most ideal locations
in the country for generating wind energy. Many windmills have already
been constructed bringing both clean energy and alternative sources of
revenue for area farmers. When it comes to alternative energy, these
are exciting times in southwest Minnesota.
This farm bill includes many provisions that reward farmers and
others for using renewable energy sources. Two provisions in the energy
title award loans and loan guarantees to individuals and businesses
that use renewable energy sources or make efficiency improvements.
One of the strongest provisions is the ``Value-Added Agricultural
Market Development Grants.'' These grants have been expanded to include
wind power.
Mr. Speaker, although this bill is not perfect, it is a very good
bill for clean energy and a great bill for Minnesota agriculture. I
strongly support passage, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has been a tremendous leader in
a lot of these programs, especially in the school lunch program that
the gentleman has pushed so successfully, along with the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I
especially want to express my support for section 3107 of the
conference report, the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which is included under
title III of this bill.
The conference report establishes this global school feeding
initiative as a permanent program and provides $100 million for fiscal
year 2003 to act as bridge money to sustain the current pilot program
projects currently operating in 38 countries, currently feeding 9
million children, until continuing appropriations are made by Congress.
I want to thank the conferees who worked so hard to include this
provision in the final conference report. I especially thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his work on this. I also thank
the majority leader and the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture
and the ranking member from the other body for all their help, and I
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his hard work to make this
provision a reality.
Mr. Speaker, the International Food for Education Program named after
the two visionary Senators who developed this proposal, George McGovern
and Robert Dole, aims to provide at least one nutritious meal each day
in a school setting to more than 300 million children who go to bed at
night hungry. Some 130 million of these children will not go to school
this week because their parents need them to stay home or go to menial
jobs, or because they are orphaned by war, natural disaster, or
diseases like AIDS, or because they are girls.
School feeding programs are a proven method of reducing the incidence
of hunger among children, attracting them to school, especially girls,
and keeping them in school. When part of an integrated education
strategy, they further contribute to improving academic performance.
In these perilous times, I firmly believe that the dollars we spend
today on feeding and educating the neediest children around the world
promote our national security, combat terrorism, and ultimately result
in economic growth in new markets at home. Nine of today's top 10
importers of U.S. agricultural projects are former recipients of food
aid. Today's hungry children, who get the chance to go to school and
get a nutritious meal, will become tomorrow's teachers, doctors,
computer programmers and entrepreneurs, the leaders of their nations.
I know that our farmers and our private voluntary and development
organizations are proud to contribute to ending hunger, poverty and
desperation through this type of program. I look forward to working
with my colleagues and administration officials to make sure this
program has adequate funding in the future. Again, I thank the
conferees for their assistance with this.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is the product of months of
hard work by the Committee on Agriculture colleagues, and it deserves
our support, and I rise in strong support of the rule. I thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the committee for coming to us
with a bill that will help keep our family farmers operating across the
country and will keep our supermarkets filled with fresh products at
the best price.
In northeastern and central Pennsylvania, I have seen dairy farms
disappear all my life. Farmers have had difficulty surviving the price
fluctuations that can cripple their family income. I have made a
priority to do something to help the small dairy farms in my region.
The farms support not only the farmers that live on them, but they
support the communities and the schools and the churches and the very
rural infrastructure that has made our country great.

[[Page H2026]]

This bill, for the first time, gives us a counter-cyclical dairy
payment which will be good for all producers. It is a national program
which will provide a much-needed safety net for our farmers across
America by providing direct payments in times of low prices. It is not
a regional program. It is nationwide, and it will help all farmers. It
will be immensely important to Pennsylvania's 10,000 dairy farmers.
This bill is good for consumers. It is good for producers. It is good
for the rural areas of our country, and it is good for the environment.
It keeps people on the land. It keeps the dairy farms spread out across
the country, which is a great thing to have in times when we worry
about bioterrorism and the things that have happened since September
11. This bill is good for America. I thank the conferees for coming
back to us with much-needed help for the families and communities whose
livelihoods depend upon dairy farming. I urge my colleagues to support
this conference report.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of this rule on the conference report. Overall this report
represents a balanced bill that provides a good combination of safety
net and flexibility. In so many ways, the Farm Security Act of 2002 is
a renewed commitment to rural America at a time when it is needed.
As a member of the conference committee, I would like to offer my
thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I believe they provided the strongest leadership
possible, and they negotiated a good bill for everyone. They were
driven and tough, but yet they were understanding. Both of the
gentlemen from Texas represented not only the interests of the House,
but they also represented the best interests of American agriculture.
This bill is not perfect, and one of my disappointments is that we
were not able to get a disaster provision in this bill. Members said
there would be a point of order raised against it, so it was not
possible; but we are going to continue to work to see if we can include
it in the supplemental.
I am pleased with the dairy program where we have, for the first
time, gotten everybody together. We have a national program that treats
everybody the same that is going to be a big help when prices are low;
and yet it is going to be the least disruptive to the marketplace. And,
lastly, it is going to be focused on the smaller family farmers which
are the ones that we are having a hard time keeping in business in this
country.
We have provided some predictability with the commodity section, so
with this 6-year bill, farmers are going to be able to update their
bases and yields, have a target price, and have some kind of
understanding what kind of help is going to be available from the
government during these times of low prices that are being caused by
these trade agreements and the high value of the dollar.
On conservation, the Sportsman's Caucus and the others that I have
worked with are very pleased with the conservation program where we are
putting money into proven programs like CRP, WRP, WHIP, and other
programs that have served us so well and have a backlog, and this is
going to be very positive.
In the sugar area, I come from an area that is big in sugar
production, and we are glad to have the predictability, and being able
to get rid of the marketing assessment and putting in market
allocations so we can manage this industry on a level playing field
with the market.
Lastly, in the energy area, I represent an area that has a lot of
ethanol, and we are now moving into biodiesel. This bill will give us
some strong emphasis on resources, and resources to be place on
renewable energy. In the area of wind turbines and biomass, we are
given greater latitude in conservation programs. And there is going to
be a commitment to biodiesel, which is one of the exciting things we
are going to be working. In Minnesota, the legislature just made a big
commitment to biodiesel, and we are excited about getting this industry
established.
This is a good bill for the country. It is a good bill for American
agriculture. Again, I commend all of the members of the conference and
the staff that worked so hard to put this together, and I encourage my
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we have a House rule that says we cannot debate the
motion to recommit. There is going to be a motion to recommit this
afternoon, so allow me to explain that motion to recommit now since we
are not going to have a chance to talk about it when the motion is made
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
There are a lot of things good about this bill. Farmers need some
help; but there are some bad things about this bill. One is the fact
that there is a loophole where farmers, where the huge farmers, the
megafarms, can receive millions of dollars in price support payments
every year. The Senate put in the provision to include generic
certificates as part of the total price support limit that any farmer
can have.
We have a couple of States where many farmers exceed the limit and
the lobbying has been tremendous. I have been receiving hundreds of
calls saying we understand you are killing the farm bill, and then I
explain to them what the motion to recommit does, and then they say, is
that all it does.
The only way this is going to kill the farm bill is if the chairman
and the ranking member decide to take this back to committee and kill
it themselves. Here is what the motion to recommit does: It is what we
suggested in the motion to instruct on April 18 by a two-thirds vote
when we instructed the conferees to include the provisions in the
Senate bill that put an absolute payment limit on how much any farmer
could get from price supports. The so-called loophole of generic
certificates was included in the limit.
I think in the long run, it is going to hurt our farmers and our
chances to have legitimate Federal farm policy that helps the average
farmer. The loophole helps a couple of States, Texas, California,
Arkansas and Mississippi, gain more from the generic certificates than
almost all of the rest of the States put together.

{time} 1045

There is a tremendous lobbying effort. Let us look at what is good
policy, look at what is going to eventually help mainstream family
farms in the United States. That is my request to this body. Vote for
the motion to recommit.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do identify with the comments of my
colleague from Michigan, a family farmer who is focusing on the
priority needs of agriculture in this country.
I look at this bill before us, and I argue against the bill; I argue
against the rule. It is a lost opportunity for farmers, for people in
my State, in Oregon, for conservation and water quality, and, most
definitely, a lost opportunity for American taxpayers and consumers.
We are going to hear a lot of talk about conservation, and clearly
conservation is a critical need for American agriculture. The rural-
urban interface to protect farmland and their suburban neighbors is
absolutely critical. Yet this bill struck important Senate provisions
for conservation; and even though there is a huge increase in the
dollar amount for agriculture, so large we do not know how much is
going to be spent under this bill, at the end of the day, it devotes a
smaller percentage for conservation than the 1996 bill.
It stripped out or watered down animal welfare provisions. This House
approved provisions dealing with animal fighting, cockfighting. It
reduced those penalties and delayed its implementation for a year.
Also dealing with downed animals. It is not a good bill in terms of
animal welfare.
There are those, sadly, who think the only way you are going to help
agriculture is to be able to pile more benefits on the very largest
producers. They

[[Page H2027]]

ignore the fact that already there are almost 200,000 unmet
applications for water conservation funding. These average only $9,000
per payment. What they have done is to expand these programs to the
very largest producers, further subsidize these large feedlot
operations, increase the benefits to $450,000 for years to come, and
ignore being able to put more money to those who need it most.
It does little or nothing to deal with the needs of 80 percent of
agriculture in my State and around the country, and it focuses on the
largest elements.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we are presented with the next 10 years of
agricultural policy that comes down to this: huge increases in dollars,
no one knows how much, and a lost opportunity to forge a program for
the needs of agriculture for the next century.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), for the excellent and diligent work they did on a most
challenging bill.
I would like to just remind my colleagues to harken back to the 1996
Freedom to Farm bill and the fact that it was going to decrease
subsidies, so to speak. But it was also based on three major
components: number one, we would have lower taxes; number two, we would
have fewer regulations; and, number three, we would have more markets
in which to sell our commodities.
We all know Freedom to Farm did not work. We do not have fewer
regulations; we have more. We do not have more markets; we have the
same or fewer. And while no farmer wants to depend on the government
for anything, it is critical that we provide a safety net to our
producers.
I only wish that our colleagues who oppose this bill because of
subsidies, and most of those folks I do want to say represent suburban
districts, I wish that they would understand that in the United States
we have a very cheap food policy. We spend 11 cents of every dollar on
food, while in Europe they spend about 22 cents. In Russia they spend
about 50 cents. We are very, very fortunate.
We have the safest, most abundant food supply anywhere in the world.
I think that the conferees have done a remarkable job on this bill,
given all of the challenges posed to them.
I do want to say one thing to our colleague from Oregon who said that
we decrease funds for conservation. In fact, we increase funds by 80
percent. So that is incorrect.
Let me also take one moment to commend the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the steadfast commitment he has had
and the work he has done on the Global Food for Education initiative. I
greatly appreciate that work he has done, as well as our conferees, in
funding this very, very important initiative that will help poor
children in countries go to school and also get the nourishment they
need.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is important that we support it
and certainly vote down any motion to recommit.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture, I know and
truly appreciate how hard it is to form a consensus farm policy with so
many different competing regions, experiences, different interests and
ideas, in what should constitute the farm bill. You throw in an
important election season, and it makes it very, very difficult. And I
appreciate the work that has gone in from the leadership on the
committee and the staff in particular. But this has not been about
personalities, it has been about process and the policy; and
unfortunately, it has been a bad process, and it has resulted in bad
policy.
That is why later today at the end of general debate, I am going to
be offering a motion to recommit with instructions based on a motion to
instruct conferees that passed the House by 265 votes a little over 2
weeks ago. It would establish a meaningful payment limitation cap,
consistent with the Senate language, of $275,000, without exceptions,
without loopholes.
Now, if you believe it is good farm policy for the next 10 years to
continue to heap more and more taxpayer subsidies on a few but very
large commodity producers in this country, then you probably should
vote against my motion to recommit.
But if you believe, as I do, that we can do better, that we can
produce a more fair and balanced farm bill that helps all our family
farmers in all regions of the country, maintain fiscal discipline, and
also maintain the opportunity for trade opportunities for our farmers,
then I would encourage my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
It is drafted clearly, very simply. The committee can adopt the
language and report right back with the farm bill. This does not have
to be a deal-killer; this does not have to ruin the ability to be able
to provide a meaningful and balanced farm bill for all of our family
farmers and to give them certainty in the upcoming planting season.
That is really what is at stake, in what direction we are going to
go; whether we can have the courage to be consistent, where a majority
of the Members of the House, a majority of the Senate are already on
record of supporting a meaningful payment cap of $275,000; or if we are
going to revert back to the old style farm policy. I encourage my
colleagues to support the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, but in opposition to the
overall bill. I think we as Republicans in particular ought to worry
about what we are doing here. In 1964 in a speech for Barry Goldwater,
Ronald Reagan reminded us, he said: ``There is no such thing as a left
or a right, only an up or a down; up to the maximum of individual
freedom consistent with order, or down to the ash heap of
totalitarianism.'' He said: ``Those who would trade freedom for
security have already embarked on that downward course.''
Now, what we did last week in the conference is we traded the Freedom
to Farm Act for the Farm Security Act. I think we as Republicans ought
to think twice about what we are doing here.
We hear a lot about the cheap food that we have in the U.S. Well, if
you wonder why our food is so cheap, you have to realize part of the
reason is because we are subsidizing it. It will cost the average
American family over the next 10 years over $1,800 in direct taxes
simply because of subsidies to farm products. Do you want to know why
products are cheap? It is because we are paying for it in other ways.
You have to also realize they should be cheaper. The average American
family will pay $2,500 in addition to the $1,800 for a total of more
than $4,000 over the next 10 years, simply because of inflated food
prices because of the price supports inherent in this bill.
We ought to wonder what we are doing. There is no such thing as a
free lunch, and Americans across the country are being stuck with the
bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill.
In reference to the remarks of the preceding speaker, let me just
tell you that our Nation's farmers deserve more, much more, than to be
pawns in some kind of ideological or partisan clash. That is why I so
commend the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture in bringing the bill before us today and the
strong work they have done to craft a bill, get it passed and get it
through the conference committee.
The bill restores a safety net for our Nation's farmers and sends a
signal to them as they head into the fields this spring that we stand
committed to family farmers as the primary element of the production of
our Nation's food supply.

[[Page H2028]]

The bill restores a safety net for our Nation's farmers when prices
collapse. No critical aspect of Freedom to Farm so failed our farmers
as the failure to have a safety net price response. The bill makes that
right.
The bill also increases conservation funding significantly, adds
funding behind Market Value Development grants, and funds a Rural
Strategic Investment program to help the financial health of our
struggling rural communities, all of these very positive additions over
present farm law.
It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. I have to note some
disappointments. The disaster assistance so badly needed by the farmers
in my State, losses that were not compensated through the crop
insurance program, were deleted from the bill. We have to make another
run at finding another source to get that disaster funding put in
place. Payment limitations should have been made more strict; they were
not made more strict.
But I would respond to my colleagues that want to derail this bill
today with their motion to recommit by saying at this point, I have got
to part company with you. I support payment limits, but today is not
the day to vote on that. We voted on it several times. Today is the day
we put a farm program in place for our family farmers.
I believe if the program is derailed today, sent back to conference
committee yet again, we will never get this in place for the upcoming
crop year; and at this late point in time, that is the overarching
priority, and that is why we ought to pass this legislation.
The bill is not the medicine that cures all that ails our farmers,
but it is a good step forward; and I urge its passage.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. I
represent a rural area. We lost 1,000 farmers last year, lost 5,000
over the last 6 years, and have the three poorest counties per capita
in the United States. I have not seen Scottie Pippen out there, and
some of those who have received $200,000 payments broke even or lost
money.
We are currently in the worst year of 5 years of record low prices.
The European Union supports their farmers $350 per acre, Japan well
over $1,000 per acre. We provide $43 per acre, and we say that is too
much. I do not understand that.
I would have liked to have maybe seen some tighter payment limits,
maybe more restrictive rules on packer ownership. It is easy to throw
rocks and cast stones and say I do not like this or like that, but I do
not think most people realize how difficult it is to coordinate all of
the different agricultural regions in the country and to write a
comprehensive bill.
Somebody earlier complained about the process. This thing went on
over 2 years, 47 hearings. It was done in the full committee. The
ranking member and the chairman could not have been more fair.
Everybody had their shot. There was nothing done behind closed doors.
It could not have been a better process.
So what the bill does is this: it eliminates emergency payments. The
last 4 years we have spent $24 billion a year on agriculture with
emergency payments. This bill should average $17 billion a year. That
is not throwing money away, as far as I am concerned; that is fiscally
responsible.
The 80 percent increase in conservation certainly does not ignore
conservation interests. That is a huge increase. We have significant
increases for research, 350 percent for agriculture research, and
promotion of foreign trade, nutrition, rural economic development,
which we badly need, and we also have some renewable fuel economies.
So if this bill is rejected, we will start over in the middle of an
election cycle, and we will make the 1,370-page bill that the other
body presented us look very small in comparison. I urge support of the
rule and passage of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

{time} 1100

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and the
farm bill conference report.
Farmers throughout the 23 counties of Missouri's Fourth Congressional
District have been facing some of the lowest crop prices in a
generation. The 1998 Freedom to Farm Act was adopted when times were
pretty good and with the notion of providing more flexibility for our
agriculture producers. Unfortunately, it did not provide an adequate
safety net and it failed to yield the tools we need to address hard
times like the current farm recession. Consequently, since 1998,
Congress has approved billions of dollars in ad hoc farm income
assistance.
In contrast, this year's farm bill provides a meaningful safety net
for America's agriculture producers and gives certainty and support to
farmers who might otherwise be forced to leave farming.
The bill is comprehensive. It is a 6-year measure that covers
subsidies to producers, conservation, food safety, nutrition and trade.
For commodities, it continues the direct payment program in marketing
loans, but also adds a countercyclical initiative that would make
payments when farm prices are so low. Importantly, the bill also
undertakes price supports for dairy farmers and increased funding for
apple producers.
The farm bill expands USDA's conservation programs, including helpful
funding for the Environmental Quality Initiative Program so that
Missouri's farmers can address conservation problems and comply with
expensive, but important, environmental regulations. It also extends
and improves the food stamp program and other nutrition initiatives
while renewing our emphasis on rural development, agriculture research
and energy, including language that reauthorizes and funds both biomass
and biodiesel initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, the farm bill is long overdue, and I commend the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and their counterparts from the other body in working together
on behalf of America's farmers.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I cannot help
but just think about how much we take for granted here in the United
States, how spoiled we are. We take our farmers for granted every
single day.
We take for granted that we have the cheapest food in the world. When
there is any kind of an emergency in the world, who does the world turn
to first? The American farmer. In fact, literally, before we had troops
on the ground in Afghanistan, we were putting together food supplies to
make certain that the folks in Afghanistan did not starve to death.
That is true in every hot spot in the world. American farmers are taken
for granted.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else we take for granted. Here is a
chart. This is how much we pay for food in the United States as a
percentage of the per capita income. It is only 10.9 percent here in
the United States. We take that for granted every single day that we
will have an abundance of cheap food on every supermarket counter all
across the country.
For example, in India, it is 51 percent. Even some of our close
friends like the United Kingdom, it is 11.2; Sweden, 14.6; in France,
it is 14.8. We take that for granted every single day. We take so much
for granted.
I hear this debate and people say, oh, my gosh, we are going to spend
$73.5 billion over the next 10 years. Well, that is what we agreed to
last year. That is what we formally agreed to this year in our budget
resolution. It should not come as a surprise. The gentleman from
Nebraska recently said we had 47 hearings on this. We went all over the
country. We learned a lot about agriculture, whether one is in
California or Pennsylvania or down South, in the upper Midwest, and
this is a wonderful compromise.
I want to congratulate the ranking member and the chairman. Frankly,
I think when this thing is all over we ought to send them to the Middle
East to try to bring these people together to

[[Page H2029]]

come up with a compromise that people can live with, which is almost
impossible.
As I say, there are 2 things that we take for granted in this country
every single day. One is cheap food and the other, I think, is even
more important, and that is an unlimited supply of young farmers who
are willing to go out there and take a chance at it. We take that for
granted every day. I think part of the reason we ought to pass this
bill today is because we need to send a message to younger farmers that
when we do things here at the Federal level that make it difficult for
farmers to compete in the world marketplace, we ought to be there to
provide a shock absorber, and when we send that message, we are going
to have those young farmers out there willing to take a chance at it.
Let me show my colleagues the second chart. Some people say we are
spending too much on farmers. Well, even with the passage of this bill,
the old number was $49 per acre that we subsidize agriculture, and with
the passage of this bill it will go to $54 an acre. Yes, that is a lot
of money. But when we compare it to our trading competitors, the
European Union is $309 per acre, and in Japan it is over $4,000 an
acre.
Now, we are asking our farmers to compete in that world marketplace.
What about leveling the playing field?
Finally, some people say we need payment limits, and I am in favor of
payment limits. But understand that farming is changing. So when we
look at these numbers, they look like big numbers, but if one is a
full-time farmer, some people say, well, 80 percent of the benefit will
go to 20 percent of the farmers. That is the farmers who produce the
food for us and the rest of the world. I think we need to pass this
today.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
legislation.
As others have indicated, when we put together a bill of such
magnitude, of so many commodities, of so many different parts of the
country, it is difficult stuff and, at the end of the day, nobody is
going to be 100 percent happy, but this is basically a good bill, and I
applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and I applaud the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their efforts.
To my mind, the great crisis facing this country in terms of
agriculture is that every single day we are seeing family farmers being
forced off the land, people who, in some instances, have been, their
families have been on that land generation after generation after
generation. This is true in my State of Vermont, it is true in the
Midwest, it is true in the South, it is true all over this country.
Some people say, well, what is the big deal? So what. Let the market
work. So what if we end up with 3 companies who control the production
and distribution of food in America? I say that is not good. I say that
will be a disaster for the consumer. Think about what food prices will
be when we have a few agribusiness companies controlling what we eat
and the prices that we pay. Think about what it means to the
environment when family farmers all over this country are forced off
the land and shopping malls and parking lots take their place. What
does that mean for suburban sprawl?
Think about food security for the United States of America. Every
Member of this body is concerned about our dependence on Mideast oil.
What will it mean when we are forced to import food to feed our people?
Vermont is a dairy State. We brought forth the North East Dairy
Compact which protects New England and I thought and believe today that
was good legislation. Other people in this body disagreed with that.
What made sense for us was to work with our friends in the Midwest,
work with our friends in the South, and say let us develop national
dairy policy which protects farmers not only in the Northeast, but in
the Mid-Atlantic, in the South, in the Midwest. I am proud that we were
able to craft legislation that will give strong protection to dairy
farmers, family farmers all over this country.
I want to thank all of the representatives from the Midwest, from the
South, for their help in that effort.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Let me start off by thanking the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I know a lot of people have
started off by saying that today, but I just want to tell my
colleagues, having worked very closely with these gentlemen for the
last 10 weeks and particularly over the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ years,
almost, now, to construct this farm bill, these men have done yeoman
work for the American farmer and they deserve every bit of the
congratulations they are getting today.
Let me tell my colleagues how this farm bill came about. Two years
ago the chairman decided that we wanted to approach the new farm bill a
little bit different than we had approached any other farm bill. We
went all across America. We held 10 hearings around the country. We did
not talk to commodity groups and we did not talk to commissioners of
agriculture; we talked to farmers. We said what is working with the
current farm bill? What do you want to see maintained out of that farm
bill? And what do you want to see, what type of different approach do
you want to see?
Based on what we heard from farmers, the chairman and the ranking
member came back, along with all of us who attended those hearings, and
again, those of us who did our own hearings. I did a hearing in my
subcommittee on the West Coast and the Midwest rural agriculture area
and one on the East Coast, again, talking to farmers. We developed a
philosophy that is entirely different from the approach in the current
farm bill that we are operating under, but it is an approach that will
allow our farmers to get a decent return on the investment they make
every year.
Most people in America do not understand that every farmer in America
gambles his life savings every single year when he turns the ground and
puts seeds in the ground and fertilizer on top of it and hopes that at
the end of the day, he is going to be able to get some kind of return
on that investment that he has had to make.
This farm bill, irrespective of what crop it is, guarantees that our
farmers will have an opportunity to plan right, to use good, sound
business decisions to be able to get a decent return on their
investment.
There has been a lot said about payment limits up here. Well, I am
one of those States that is criticized for the high payment limits that
our farmers have. Let me tell my colleagues what that means to my
farmers. My farmers would just as soon not get one dime from the
Federal Government. They would much rather rely on the market. But the
simple fact of the matter is that prices today for commodities that my
farmers grow and every farmer across America grows are lower than what
they were or equal to what they were almost 50 years ago. But yet the
cost of a tractor, the cost of a combine, the cost of a cotton picker,
the cost of chemicals, the cost of fertilizer, have skyrocketed.
Our farmers deserve a break. Our farmers deserve to have an
investment made in them so that every single individual who goes to the
store or goes to the grocery store or the department store to buy food
products or shirts or suits or whatever they may be can be assured that
they are going to get a quality product at a reasonable price. We have
seen the numbers up here about how much money the average individual in
America spends on food products compared to what people spend around
the world. The reason that is so is because of the investment the
government makes under this payment limitation provision.
Let us support this rule, let us support the underlying bill and,
most importantly, let us support the American farmer.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.

[[Page H2030]]

I represent the most productive agricultural congressional district
in the United States, not only in production, but in diversity of
crops, and I go home every week and I talk to my farmers and they ask
me, when is somebody going to get up and say that these farm bills
really do not protect farmers? I have heard a lot of discussion here
today.
What this protects is farmers if they grow those crops in your
district or in your State, but the majority of people out there who are
planting the seeds that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss)
talked about do not benefit from that program. They go to market and if
the market price is low, they have to eat it. If the crop fails, they
have to eat it. They do not get help from the Government. I think that
the problem with the farm bill is it states for the next 5 years what
our U.S. policy, and U.S. policy about agriculture is that if you are
in a special commodity program, the Government is going to help you. If
you are outside of it, you just have to take the risk and bear it.
Until we get a farm bill that is fair to everyone and fair to
totality, the holistic approach to our community, to land use, to
animal husbandry, to humane practices and to making it fair for every
farmer in America, we are not going to have a good farm bill. I urge a
no vote.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Ganske).
(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I am for the rule, but after listening to
and learning from many of Iowa's leading farmers, I will vote against
this farm bill conference report. It is fair to say that many farmers
in Iowa have deep reservations about this bill. This farm bill
conference report is not in the Nation's or my State's best long term
interest. We need to go back to the drawing board. This bill fails in
many ways.
The conference payment limitations provision is a sham. The Grassley
proposal would have brought the limit down to $275,000 and have
eliminated the 3-entity rule. The conference report favors the large
southern producers of cotton and rice and is so full of loopholes that
it does not even qualify as a step forward.
For instance, a 25,000-acre cotton farm could receive as much as $8.4
million in total annual payments because of loopholes. In 2000 and
2001, 85 percent of the 2 billion certificates went to farmers in large
agribusinesses in just 4 States: Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and
California. Riceland Foods of Arkansas alone collected $221 million,
and that continues under this bill.
The Grassley proposal for a ban on the packer ownership of livestock
was endorsed by the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Pork Producers, the Iowa
Cattleman's Association, the Iowa Farmers Union and the National
Farmers Union. It is not usual for all of these groups to agree on farm
policy, but on this they were unanimous, and the conference completely
ignored this important issue.
Some aspects of this bill remind me of a return to the failed farm
policies of the 1980s and early 1990s. Because it is tilted so heavily
to agriculture in the South, it will encourage production in marginal
areas with high crop failure rates. This will keep commodity production
higher than it would be under free market conditions.

{time} 1115

It is in the Nation's interest in terms of conservation to take
marginal land out of production. CRP helps, but it will be buried by
the push in this bill for higher production for marginal lands, and
that will lower prices even further.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this conference report, and we
should.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ackerman).
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition. After a
decade of work, I had been tremendously pleased to see that my
amendment to ban the marketing and movement of downed animals at
auctions in stockyards was included and accepted by the House, and I am
disappointed today that this commonsense legislation to protect the
safety of the food supply and to end the suffering of downed animals
was neutered by the conference.
The transport and marketing of these incapacitated, sick, and
crippled animals creates a tremendous human health concern, as well as
humane concerns. This is only one-tenth of 1 percent of the market, and
they are not euthanized only because at that point they could not be
used for human consumption.
The downed animal amendment has 165 sponsors, was accepted by both
Houses. The House should know that meat from downed animals has an
increased risk from bacterial contamination and other diseases,
including neurological afflictions such as mad cow disease. The
Veterinary Services Department of the USDA itself said that downed
animals is the number two risk for mad cow disease.
We have prohibited the use of this product in the school lunch
program; McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's have banned the use of this,
California bans the use of this. How on earth do we justify using the
meat of these poor downed, crippled, sick animals in our own food
supply?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Farm Security Act
Conference Report. After over a decade of work, I was tremendously
pleased to see that my amendment to ban the marketing and movement of
``downed animals'' at auctions and stockyards and to require that these
animals be humanely euthanized was included in both the House and the
Senate version of the Farm Security Act.
Today I am disappointed to report that this commonsense legislation
to protect the safety our Nation's food supply, and to end the
suffering of downed animals was severely neutered during conference
committee negotiations.
The transport and marketing of these incapacitated sick or crippled
animals creates tremendous human health concerns as well as humane
concerns. Downers make up only one-tenth of 1 percent of the market.
And not to euthanize them just because then they couldn't be marketed
for human consumption, is indeed a sin.
The downed animal amendment cosponsored by 165 members, was accepted
by the House and the Senate and offered a solution that would protect
both the public health and downed animals.
Meat from downed animals has an increased risk for bacterial
contamination and other diseases, including neurological affictions
such as mad cow disease. This is not a fringe idea.
Last year, the USDA itself instituted a policy precluding the
purchase of beef from downed animals for the national school lunch
program because of these safety concerns.
How on God's Earth can they justify marketing this to the rest of the
country, when they say it is unsafe to put in our school lunch program?
In addition to this, the fast food chains are doing the appropriate
thing. Chains such as McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have all
banned the use of meat from downed animals in their products. And who
else? California, the largest cattle producer in the country, Colorado
and Illinois, have already prohibited the entry of downed animals into
the food supply. Why just them? All Americans must be protected from
this risk.
And yet, and yet, there are some who kowtow to the few irresponsible
folks within the industry in order to protect only one-tenth of 1
percent of the market.
Last year a Zogby America Poll of 1,000 people in our country found
that four out of every five opposed the use of downed animals for human
food.
I want to emphasize that my downed animal amendment passed both
bodies; it has 165 cosponsors; and that it gives USDA the authority it
needs and does not interfere with the USDA's current disease-testing
program.
Mr. LINDER. 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 support the rule and I support the bill. The bill is
not a perfect bill, but there is no perfect piece of legislation that I
have ever seen pass the Congress or pass the House of Representatives.
But this is an important piece of legislation. It is not only an
important piece of legislation for farmers, but for hungry people as
well, and also for us as consumers. It affects millions and millions of
people, and I think what the gentleman from Texas (Chairman

[[Page H2031]]

Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), have done, and their staffs, everybody who has worked on
this, is a tremendous task.
They are to be congratulated for all the different provisions that
they put in there: for nutrition, for legal immigrants, for hungry
people overseas, the TFAB program. So many programs that are important
are incorporated in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we are able to pass this legislation. I see no
reason why we cannot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I simply want to thank the Committee on Rules for their warm
acceptance of our testimony yesterday before them, for granting this
rule, and for the kind words of support that have been indicated by the
members of the Committee and others.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, 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.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 403, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the
continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
May 1, 2002, at page H1795).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. STENHOLM. I most certainly am not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the discussion of the heart of this
bill, I want to take a moment to thank my friend and my colleague, the
ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Two-and-a-half years ago, we literally linked arm in arm to try to
move down a path of finding an answer to what had been plaguing the
agricultural economy in America for a number of years, and we have seen
it continue to exist and grow. This was done in a strongly bipartisan
manner. We included all of our committee.
We went across this country and had hearings and listened to people
tell us what their concerns were. We have heard and we will hear
throughout this day opposition by people who, certainly their
opposition in their mind is as justified as it is part of our process.
But I would say that looking at this in total and in whole, and
looking at this from the standpoint of where we are if this conference
report does not pass, I would say that to anyone who has a true care
about agriculture and rural development and rural America and nutrition
and conservation and research and trade, that there is no other option.
It is either basically this or it is nothing.
I want to thank my friend for those long plane rides and those long
hearings, for those hours of discussion that we moved through together.
Because without that effort and without that opportunity, I do not
believe that we would be where we are today. So I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
on the farm bill. This is the end product of over 2 years of very hard
work by members of the Committee on Agriculture. After dozens of
hearings in Washington and around the country, and hundreds of hours of
work, we brought a farm bill to the floor last October that passed this
House with 291 votes. We went into a difficult conference over 60 days
ago, and after a great deal of effort and compromise, we produced the
conference report that Members will have before them today.
Because we could not finish a bill last year, the time needed to put
in place a new farm bill for this crop year is almost gone. If the
House does not pass this conference report today, there will be no
strengthened safety net for farmers this year. Instead, the House will
be faced with passing a fifth temporary emergency spending bill for
farmers.
Both farmers and taxpayers are shortchanged by slapping Band-Aids on
the problem of the farm economy. Farmers are facing the fifth year of
record low prices, and the lowest real net cash income since the Great
Depression. As a result, Congress has spent nearly $30 billion over the
last 4 years in emergency assistance.
While desperately needed, these ad hoc payments always left producers
and their lenders in a state of uncertainty. There was no ability to
use this money efficiently.
One of the primary reasons for acting quickly on the farm bill was to
end dependence on the ad hoc legislation. The conference report we have
before us provides better, more flexible help for farmers. While the
emergency bill averaged $7 billion per year, this farm bill, according
to its scoring, averages less than $5 billion a year in additional
spending to help farmers.
Clearly, putting in place an improved farm bill, beginning with this
crop year, is better for everyone. But we have reached in the 11th
hour. In a matter of days it will be too late to implement an improved
program for this year. Congress will then be left with the option of
yet another emergency spending and the job of redrafting a farm bill.
I want to emphasize to my colleagues that today's conference report
is the best compromise we are likely to see. In addition to desperately
needed help for farmers, it contains the largest single increase in
conservation funding in history, significant gains for food stamps and
nutrition funding, more resources for agricultural research, increased
incentives for renewable fuels production, and a strengthened
commitment to our rural communities. It is all accomplished within the
limits of the budget.
Failure to act decisively today to secure the gains in this
conference report would jeopardize the future of our farmers and all of
the others who benefit from this work that went into the farm bill.
This bill is supported by dozens of farm groups, ranging from the Farm
Bureau to the Farmers Union to the Food Research Action Center to
Ducks, Unlimited.
Yesterday, the Secretary of Agriculture said she would recommend the
President sign the legislation. Today we have a statement from the
President commending this legislation. They all know that this
conference report benefits everyone.
Mr. Speaker, let us not pass up the opportunity to help American
agriculture and rural communities. I would strongly urge my colleagues
to support this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to briefly
summarize where we are.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. I,
too, want to begin by congratulating my friend, my neighbor, and the
chairman of my committee for his work and action over the last 2\1/2\
years. His leadership has been exemplary, and for that, I am very
appreciative.
Speaking from the minority side, from the very beginning, the
hearings that we held all over the country in which we asked for
solutions when bringing the bill to the full floor of the House, after
full deliberations in the committee in which every minority interest
was heard, as well as every majority interest, and then coming to the
floor of the House and having the full discussion under an open rule in
which

[[Page H2032]]

every Member of this body was permitted to have their say, and now, the
last 4 weeks, in a very difficult conference with the other body, Mr.
Chairman, the chairman's leadership has brought it to this point. I am
proud to have ridden shotgun with the gentleman in this endeavor.
Now we have urgency before us. It is time to report this bill out of
the House, out of the Senate, and get it to the President, where he
will sign it, as he has said today.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is well-balanced. It restores the
safety net for producers, it boosts spending on farm conservation
programs by over 80 percent, it restores food stamps to immigrant
children and the disabled, it addresses critical needs in rural
development, and it tightens payments limits, and it is fiscally
responsible.
We have stayed within the $73.5 billion that the Committee on the
Budget gave us. As we have already heard from several speakers, if we
really want to be fiscally responsible, we will pass this bill. We will
not continue to depend upon emergency ad hoc spending, which has, as we
have just heard, has been $30 billion over the last 4 years.
This bill is fiscally responsible. It does most of the things, even
though it cannot please all of us. There are still those on the
Committee on Agriculture and in this body that do not agree with
everything that we have done, but I commend this as a reasonable
compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of the conference report and
oppose any motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for the debate we
have had. House consideration under an open rule resulted in passage of
the bill by a vote of 291 to 120. After the Senate debated the bill for
weeks, we had conferees from 10 House committees and the Senate come to
agreement on the conference report that is before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I particularly congratulate the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, my friend and neighbor, Larry Combest. His
leadership from the beginning has been outstanding. Under his guidance
the Agriculture Committee, the full House, and finally the conference
committee developed a refined farm bill that brings together a wide
variety of interests.
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this conference report without delay. It
has been several years since we could say that things were going well
in American agriculture.
Right now, corn is valued at under $2 per bushel, wheat--about $2.75;
soy beans--about $4.60; and cotton is under 35 cents a pound. Our
ability to export is hampered by an unfavorable exchange rate. The
bottom line: Our producers need this farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report is a well-balanced package: It
restores the safety net for agricultural procedures; it boosts spending
on Farm Conservation programs by over 80 percent; it restores food
stamps to immigrant children and disabled; it addresses critical needs
in rural development; and it tightens payment limits.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues wish there was more in
this conference report. So do I. I know there are colleagues who wish
that some provisions were not included in this conference report. So do
I. But we had to compromise and respect the views of our colleagues
from the other body. The bill is not perfect, but it will do a great
deal of good for our Nation. Agricultural producers will have greater
financial security, hungry people will be fed, and natural resources
will be protected and preserved.
Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues should be clear about this.
Regardless of the instructions, a motion to recommit will kill this
conference report and everything in it.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on any motion to recommit and vote
yes on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. We
have brought to the House a well-balanced bill, and I believe that a
strong vote for its adoption will demonstrate the House's agreement. I
want to thank my colleagues in the House for their cooperation and
assistance in bringing this bill forward. My colleagues on the
Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle, deserve a great deal
of credit for their willingness to get the farm bill off to a good
start last July. Since then, it has sometimes gone slowly but we have
persevered and can be gratified with the final result.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who
served on the conference committee, including those from the nine
committees other than the Agriculture Committee. The broad support of
the conferees who signed the report is another testament to the
balanced and inclusive approach that was taken to develop this
important legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to congratulate the
Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my friend and neighbor, Larry
Combest. His leadership from the beginning has been outstanding. Under
his guidance, the Agriculture Committee, the full House, and finally
the conference committee developed a refined farm bill that brings
together a wide variety of interests.
Mr. Speaker, on October 5 of last year, after a full debate under an
open rule, this House passed the farm bill by a strong bipartisan vote
of 291 to 120. On February 13, the Senate passed its version by a vote
of 58 to 40, after weeks of floor consideration. Following Senate
passage, conferees from the Agriculture Committees--and nine other
House committees--have worked daily to develop the compromise that is
before the House today. As we usually see with conference reports on
important issues, no one involved is completely happy with the final
result. It is a truly balanced package, however, and there are many
reasons to support swift passage of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report before the House has many
features. First and foremost, it provides for a strong safety net for
our Agricultural producers. The bill retains the flexibility in
production and reliability of decoupled assistance that were provided
for in the 1996 Farm Act. Above and beyond that, the countercyclical
payments it provides to program crop producers will alleviate the need
for Congress to provide additional, ad hoc, income support when prices
are in decline. Marketing loan tools will continue to be available to
program crop producers.
Mr. Speaker, farm program support will be governed by new payment
limit provisions. The conference compromise reduces the limit on fixed
payments by 20 percent: the limit on countercyclical payments--in
comparison to the House bill--are reduced 13 percent, and loan
deficiency payments and marketing loan gains are cut in half. The total
dollar limitation on program assistance under the conference compromise
is reduced by 35 percent in comparison to the House bill. We have
maintained the ability of producers to use generic certificates in
order to continue to support them in these times of very low prices.
New transparency rules regarding payment provisions are being included,
allowing us to gather information in order to provide a clearer view of
the distribution of program payments.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report extends the dairy price support
program through 2007, and restores the program's budgetary baseline. In
addition, the conferees propose a modification of the Senate's direct
dairy payment program. Under the provision, a countercyclical payment
will be made to dairy producers for any month during which the class I
price for Boston under Federal milk marketing orders is lower than
$16.94. A participating producer would be eligible for payment on all
production up to 2.4 million pounds per year. While some Members will
oppose any direct payments to dairy farmers, the conference has
substantially improved the program in comparison to the Senate's
provision. This is a temporary program that will help ease the sting of
the loss of the Northeast Dairy Compact--which is not extended by the
bill--for dairy farmers in the Northeast. It also provides fair support
to producers throughout the Nation when milk prices fall.
Mr. Speaker, the conference substitute follows the House bill by
ending the quota program for peanuts. Under this dramatic reform,
peanut quota will be retired, and producers will become eligible for
the types of marketing loan, countercyclical, and fixed payment
benefits that apply to program crops.
The bill extends the sugar program and provides needed support for
sheep and goat ranchers, as well as for beekeepers.
Mr. Speaker, the conference compromise also provides for extension of
chapter 12--Small Family Farmer Bankruptcy provisions. The chapter will
be extended to run until December 31, 2002.
The conference report provides for truly dramatic increases in
spending on farm conservation programs. I know that many of my
colleagues are hearing from one organization or another that the report
falls short in this area. Sometimes those folks attempt to make their
case without providing the facts. Here are the facts, based on the
actual provisions of the conference report:
$17.1 billion is added to farm conservation programs over 10 years.
This bill is an 80 percent increase in farm conservation spending.
Conservation Reserve Program acreage will rise from 36.4 to 39.2
million areas.
The Wetlands Reserve Program acreage cap rises from 975,000 acres to
2.275 million acres.
New Grasslands Reserve Program to protect 2 million acres.
Farmland Protection Program--A 20-fold increase.
Wildlife Habit Incentives Program--A 10-fold increase.

[[Page H2033]]

EQIP--Annual spending will rise to $1.3 billion, compared to $200
million under current law.
New Conservation Security Program to provide incentive payments for
stewardship on working farms.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also allocates additional resources for
nutrition program spending. In solidarity with the Bush administration,
we propose to restore food stamp benefits for immigrant children and
for disabled immigrants, as well as for immigrants who have been in the
country for 5 years. Transitional benefits are provided for households
leaving the TANF program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. As a
result of this legislation, the food stamp quality control system is
reformed and procedures are aligned with other welfare programs. The
Emergency Food Assistance Program and other feeding programs
are extended and expanded under the provisions of the bill. Altogether,
nutrition program spending is increased by $6.4 billion above baseline
levels.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the programs I have mentioned, funding is
provided to reduce backlogs in the rural water and waste programs, to
reaffirm our commitment to helping farmers compete for foreign markets,
to boost research on agricultural production, and to continue the
Global Food for Education Initiative, GFEI.
The conference report also establishes a requirement that food labels
identify the country of origin of meat, fruits and vegetables, fish,
and peanuts. The Secretary must provide guidelines for voluntary
labeling by September 30, 2002, and the program would become mandatory
in 2 years. There are many concerns that have been raised by the
affected parties regarding the implementation of country of origin
labeling. I want to assure everyone interested in this issue that the
committee intends to closely monitor the establishment of this program
and to fine tune it as necessary before the final mandatory program
becomes effective.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I need to speak to the budget aspect of this
legislation. I must admit, it greatly disturbs me to come to this floor
and support a conference report with $73.5B in spending, given our
current projections on deficit spending. However, when I sit down and
try to analyze a better solution, I can find none. When I look at our
past actions on disaster and income assistance, I quickly come to the
conclusion that the only way we can avoid more costly year-by-year
assistance to agriculture is to provide a reliable long term
agricultural policy that includes a programmatic response to low prices
as well as disasters. I believe that this bill will save money in the
long run because it lessens our need to rely on disaster and income
assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many of my colleagues wish there was more in
this conference report. So do I. I know there are colleagues who wish
that some provisions were not included in this conference report. So do
I. But we had to compromise and respect the views of our colleagues
from the other body. The bill is not perfect, but it will do a great
deal of good for our Nation. Agricultural producers will have greater
financial security, hungry people will be fed, and natural resources
will be protected and preserved.
I strongly urge my colleagues to embrace these objectives and to vote
for the adoption of the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today very, very reluctantly to oppose this bill.
I have worked very closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) over the course of the last several years trying to craft a
sensible farm policy.
I do want to congratulate them for all of their hard work, their
tenacity, and their ability to produce a bill in a very difficult
political environment.
But maybe it was the political environment itself that causes us to
be here. We have a closely divided Congress, we have big elections in
November, and as a result, trying to do good sound farm policy in the
midst of this frankly is almost impossible.
But they have, in fact, produced a bill that they are very proud of,
and I am very proud of them for bringing a bill out.

{time} 1130

But in the end we have to make decisions as Members of Congress about
whether it is the right policy. And as I look at the bill that we have
before us, I stand to reluctantly oppose it. And I do so for a number
of reasons, but at this point I would like to talk about the overall
and overriding reason why I am in opposition to the bill.
For 60 years in America we put a hand, a lid, over the abilities of
farmers' opportunity to succeed, all in an effort to be helpful to
them. We had a system of loan rates and price guarantee, acreage
reduction; and we did it from 1935 until 1996. Farmers did not have a
chance at succeeding because we always had the lid over the top of the
commodity prices, never gave them a chance to succeed. In 1996, we made
a break from that policy and we went to Freedom to Farm. It worked well
for a couple of years, but then when we had the Southeast Asian
problem, prices began to collapse. We had the strength of the dollar
that also inhibited our ability to export products around the world.
Then in a closely divided Congress fighting for control in the House
and the Senate, got into a bidding war as to who could be the biggest
friend of agriculture. And over the last few years we have had
generous, very generous, emergency payments. But instead of staying the
course and trying to allow farmers the opportunity to get their income
from the market where farmers want to get their income, what we are
doing is we are going back to what we know did not work for 60 years;
and that is because the loan rates in the bill that we have before us
and the target prices that we have will in fact drive more production.
It will bring more marginal lands into production because of these high
loan rates that will further decrease the commodity prices that we have
today.
And what happens then? We expose the taxpayer to pick up the
difference between those low commodity prices and the loan rates that
we are setting. Farmers will have no chance to succeed, no chance of
letting the marketplace ever work; and as a result small farmers are
going to continue to go by in the way of a dust storm and only the
biggest and strongest producers who frankly do not need this help will
be getting most of the help.
I do not think that is what we want to do. I just think that American
agriculture does in fact want the market to work. Farmers do not want
checks from the Federal Government; they want them from the market
place. But in my view of the bill we have before us, ask where it will
lead us over the next several years. We will in fact see a collapse of
commodity prices and as a result the 10 years' number of an additional
$73.5 billion will in fact get eaten up in my view rather quickly over
the next couple of years. And then we will have a real disaster on our
hands. So my opposition to the bill is to say let us fix it now before
we get ourselves into a box where we have excess products laying all
over the country, very low prices and huge government expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Rural Development and Research of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the farm bill. Today, I believe, is a great day for America's farmers
and for rural America. This bill shows the true commitment of Congress
to the future of production agriculture. I am proud to have been a part
of a process where we actually asked producers what they wanted to see
in the next farm bill. Farmers told us they like the flexibility and
the fixed payment system of the old farm bill, but there was a key
element missing: producers wanted a safety net, and we responded by
including a safety net in this bill.
Producers asked us to give them an option of receiving an LDP payment
on wheat they grazed out. It was decided that that was the more
economical thing to do than harvest it. This bill gives the producers
that option and allows them to make decisions that are best for their
operation.
Producers told us that the current conservation programs were
working. The only problem was there was not enough funding. We
responded by increasing the funding for conservation programs by 80
percent and the basic cost-share conservation program by six times.
Producers pushed Congress to include a country-of-origin labeling

[[Page H2034]]

and their work paid off. When given this option, I believe consumers
will pick American produce over our foreign competitors. I strongly
support this farm bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage
and show their support for America's farmers.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been a valued member of the
conference that helped us bring us to this point.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference, report and I
want to congratulate and commend the chairman and the ranking member
for their hard work and determination in bringing this regionally
balanced piece of legislation to the floor.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation, but I
particularly want to urge my Pennsylvania and the Northeastern and Mid-
Atlantic State Members to support this conference report. Historically,
we have felt left behind when it comes to USDA policy, but this
conference report changes that. We have a true safety net for our dairy
farmers. Agriculture is still the number one industry in Pennsylvania,
and certainly dairy is the most significant form of agriculture in
Pennsylvania.
What we have here is a safety net that protects the first 2.4 million
pounds of production. That will cover herds of up to 135 cows. That
will overwhelmingly cover the majority of milk produced in
Pennsylvania. We heard talk of an 80 percent increase in conservation
in this conference report. That is so important in Pennsylvania. We
have almost a billion dollars in this conference report for farm land
conservation. Pennsylvania has already retired 194,000 acres in the
Farm Land Protection Program. This will allow us to continue the fight
to protect against urban sprawl and to keep our family farmers in
business.
Rural development. We have over a billion dollars in rural
development investment in this conference report; 360 million of that
is directed towards the backlog in water and sewer projects. That is so
desperately needed in the Northeastern part of the country, something
that has also been very valuable in Pennsylvania as we attempt to clean
up our streams and rivers and watersheds.
Again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member and all
the conferees and everyone who has worked very hard on this
legislation. It is balanced, and it is good for American agriculture.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It
is good for the American farmer, and it is good for the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, the U.S farm economy continues to experience one of the
worst cycles of depressed prices for most of the major commodities,
while the costs continue to escalate for major inputs. Our farmers and
ranchers have been without a safety net to protect them during periods
of low market prices. Fortunately, we are about to change that with
this new farm bill. We began this process over two years ago with field
hearings around the country to hear from producers about what they
wanted to see in a new farm bill. I am happy to say that much of what
we heard from producers is represented today in this farm bill, The
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
I am confident the safety net provided to producers by this bill will
insure they remain competitive and viable, even in times of depressed
prices. A strong, effective farm policy is essential if our producers
are to continue to provide us with the safest, most affordable, and
most abundant food and fiber supply in the world. While our producers
are some of the most efficient in the world, they have been forced to
compete on an unlevel playing field, but I believe this bill will help
to level that field.
It has been a long process before arriving at this point, but I
believe we have produced a bill that will benefit all farmers,
ranchers, and rural communities across America. In addition to the
strong safety net this bill provides for producers, it contains
conservation programs that represent an eighty percent increase in
spending for conservation. There are also improved trade, nutrition,
credit, research, and forestry titles and a new energy title focusing
on renewable energy and bio-based products. Also, the strong rural
development title will help bring new businesses to rural America and
strengthen our rural communities.
As farmers are now in the fields planting their crops, I am pleased
that they will now be able to focus on producing a crop, knowing we
have taken the necessary steps to provide them with an effective safety
net. I urge a yes vote on this conference report and no on the motion
to recommit, so that this report can be approved quickly by both
chambers and the bill signed into law, allowing the implementation
process to get underway immediately.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
(Mr. THUNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I
want to thank the chairman and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their great work in doing this and having the
opportunity as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture and
participating in the hearings around the country that led up to where
we are today. We even had one hearing in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and
farmers and ranchers in South Dakota made it very clear that they want
to see a number of provisions in the new farm bill. The countercyclical
target price system that is in the bill will give farmers needed
assistance when times are tough.
The conservation provision. The Conservation Reserve Program, the
Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program that was extended as part of an
amendment that I offered on the House floor when it was debated here.
The conservation security program is legislation that I sponsored in
the House and that will give farmers incentives to do conservation
practices on working lands, provisions like value-added that will
enable our producers to reach up the ag marketing chain and become
price makers rather than price takers. They are important value-added
provisions that I worked hard for to have made a part of this farm
bill.
The bio-energy program that encourages the production of bio-fuels
such as ethanol and bio-diesel. These are all things that are going to
be important to the future of agriculture.
Country-of-origin labeling, something as well that is important not
only to the producers of this country but also consumers so they know
where their products are coming from.
There are a couple of provisions, Mr. Speaker, that I would have
liked to have seen in this bill that would prevent anticompetitive
practices: a ban on packer ownership of livestock. I also would like to
have seen a disaster declaration for the Black Hills National Forest
that would allow us to treat the mountain pine beetle epidemic that we
are dealing with there.
But on balance, Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that will move
agriculture in a positive direction. I appreciate the chairman's and
the ranking member's hard work.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I had
the opportunity of participating in the two years of hearings that led
up to this final conference report, even hosting one in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. Farmers and ranchers in South Dakota asked me to push
four important goals in the farm bill: a countercyclical safety net, a
strong conservation title, a commitment to value-added agriculture and
creation of more competition in the agricultural marketplace. This bill
goes a long way toward meeting these goals.
The commodity title of this bill establishes a new counter-cyclical
target price system that will give farmers needed assistance when times
are tough. Congress will no longer have to pass emergency legislation
that, while much appreciated by farm country, does not provide the
security that farmers need.
This farm bill increases our commitment to conservation by 80
percent. It is the ``greenest'' farm bill ever. It enhances current
incentive programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program by
extending my Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program. It also creates a new
Conservation Security Program that I sponsored in the House. The
Conservation Security Program will give farmers incentives to do
conservation practices on working lands.
Value-added agriculture has helped farmers in my state reach up the
marketing chain to become price makers, rather than price takers. This
farm bill includes two programs that are a result of my legislation to
assist producers in

[[Page H2035]]

creative value-added enterprises. The first is the Value-added Market
Development Grants that can be used for technical assistance and
feasibility studies. The second is the Bioenergy Program that
encourages the production of biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.
This farm bill will enhance producer competition by requiring
mandatory country of origin labeling for agricultural competition. In
my tenure in Congress, I have always supported legislation for country
of origin meat labeling. After offering an amendment during the
committee consideration of this bill, I am pleased that it is in the
final conference report.
Despite all of the bill's merits, I am disappointed the bill does not
include two of my provisions that I fought to have included in the
bill. First, there is no ban on packer ownership of livestock or other
anti-trust provisions to protect farmers and ranchers from anti-
competitive practices. However, I appreciate that the Chairman and
Ranking Member have committed to hearings on this issue
There is also another issue that should have been addressed in this
bill, which is a disaster declaration for the Black Hills National
Forest. Two areas of the Black Hills are at high fire risk because of
fuel on the ground and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. This disaster
declaration would have allowed the Forest Service to manage these areas
for fire prevention. I want to thank Chairman Combest and Subcommittee
Chairman Goodlatte for giving their best effort to include this
provision in the bill, but I am disappointed that it was not included
in the final conference report.
Mr. Speaker, we need to complete this bill today. This legislation
provides the certainty that producers need. Vote ``yes'' on the farm
bill conference report.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646, The Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member and conferees for their hard work on this balanced farm bill. I
think this is the 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, for it
provides a needed $73.5 billion in initial funding for agriculture
which has been facing historic low prices, low income and increased
costs. The farm bill provides producers with more options to implement
progressive conserving practices on their land and increased technical
assistance to producers. Several conservation programs were included in
this bill and increased, such as Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands
Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat and Incentive Program and Grasslands
Reserve Program.
As vice chairman of the Sportsmen Caucus, I feel this legislation
provides a balanced approach to meeting conservation needs. Although
the House version did not address or contain an energy title, I am
pleased to see the conferees adopted many of the Senate energy
provisions. Throughout my career, I have worked to expand bioenergy and
biofuels. Both ethanol and biodiesel are renewable sources and will
greatly benefit the country.
I am pleased this balanced bill has reached us today. I urge Members'
support.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very very much for the
opportunity to speak on this farm bill; and I want to give my personal
thanks to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for
working very, very hard on a farm bill, holding, I think, 47 hearings
around the country and for putting forth a strong effort in a very
difficult situation.
My belief is any farm bill should help the family farm, the medium-,
small-size family operator. And it is with great reluctance that I am
going to oppose this farm bill because I think this takes us in exactly
the wrong direction. This farm bill will hasten the demise of the
family farm. It will subsidize the largest producers with an advantage
over the medium-small producers, a dramatic advantage. It breaks all of
our trade agreements. There is no question that the provisions in this
are in direct opposition to what we have stood for as far as free, open
trade. There is more money for conservation and environmental portions
in this farm bill and those titles. The problem is they are rendered
useless because all of the incentives on this farm bill are for more
production. And I know farmers. I am one. And we are going to produce
every possible bushel that we can to make sure that when these high
payments are made that we are going to be able to reap the benefits. So
those provisions I think are virtually useless in this farm bill.
One provision I think that causes great concern in Iowa is certainly
the fact that one of the largest megahog producers, who has been a
habitual offender as far as the environment, under this farm bill is
going to be eligible and entitled to 450,000 tax payer dollars as a
reward for not taking care of the environment. It is with great
reluctance that I must oppose this farm bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill today. I must
commend, first of all, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture
along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) have done an incredible job of standing up for the
rights of producers in this country under a great challenge, especially
considering what some people in this town and elsewhere were proposing
from a different part of the capital.
It is a good bill overall. There are some problems that we have to
work through as we support this and move forward. The labeling
provision is something that we know the chairman tried to work hard to
not include in the bill but, unfortunately, it is in there along with
the dairy provisions that are in there that are not good for some of
our producers in our part of the country.
We also have some concerns with numerous new mandatory spending
programs, programs that historically and rightfully fall under the
discretion and funding jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
I hope that Members do not forget the money associated with these new
entitlement programs as my subcommittee attempts to respond to their
funding requests in the FY 2003 agriculture appropriations bill.
However, as Members of the Congress, we must base our votes on the
positive areas of this bill. This is again a good bill overall for
farmers and ranchers in this country and all associated with the bill.
We are very pleased as well especially with the wool and mohair
marketing loan provision that was put in the bill by our conferees. It
is a good bill. I stand in strong support of this today.

{time} 1145

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank the chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I think every one of us in this
body owe them our respect and gratitude for the great job they did on
this bill.
There have been many things said about this bill, and if there is one
thing this body stands for, it is that right for any Member to express
their opinion and vote in that way, and I respect that. We have had
many things said about this bill, but I can tell my colleagues one
thing, we have people come and talk about how we are going to produce
too much. Having too much food is like having too much money. It is
pretty hard to do. We do not want to run out of either one of them, and
when we do, we have got a major problem.
This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It treats everyone as
fairly as we can with the resources that we have at our disposal.
The objective of a farm bill is food security. It is not a social
program. America's farmers have served this country well. They deserve
our support

[[Page H2036]]

and to be recognized with this bill, to continue to produce the
cheapest, safest food supply in the history of this country.
I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair give us an accounting of
the time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) for yielding me the time, and I congratulate him on a hard
fought battle with the Senate, and I think that on balance he has
prevailed in sticking to the bill that we attempted to bring forward
from the House.
We have made concessions that I do not like. There are things in this
bill that I do not like, but on balance, I think there are far more
things in here that will help to assure the American public that they
have an abundant, affordable and safe supply of food for the next
several years.
I am also pleased that we were able to include in this the funding to
make it possible to bring local television service into every home in
America within the next few years, and I am also very pleased that we
are providing additional funds for food banks, a far more efficient way
to deliver food to those people in greatest need in this country than
the food stamp program, which is still, unfortunately, in bad need of
additional reforms.
Overall, I think this legislation will help America's farmers. It
will help America's consumers, and as a result, I am pleased to lend my
support to it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) for yielding me the time, and I commend him and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest) for producing this conference report, and I
rise in guarded support of this conference report.
Basically I view the bill as a holding action. America obviously
cannot undermine our farmers at a point when 70 cents of every farm
dollar is coming from the government, and we ought to produce a
different program that permits farmers to earn from the market. But
this bill does have some historic titles that are important to building
that future, importantly, the historic inclusion of an energy title.
This title will really focus the Department of Agriculture on biofuels
in every way, biomass for energy production, biobased products, et
cetera.
There are some other important provisions in the bill, such as
enhanced conservation and farmland protection, Global Food for
Education, and many of our international programs that help feed hungry
people throughout the world and relieve the surplus on our market. We
want to compliment the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for their terrific work
there.
I think the bill falls far short in the area of assisting specialty
crop producers to be included. Also, it does not do enough to break up
concentration that is causing higher food prices, and really, a
narrowing of those who can bring product to the market in this
legislation.
I am not pleased with what was done on changing the language dealing
with labelling of irradiated foods. But overall, we cannot undermine
our farmers at a point when they need our support to maintain U.S. food
security. I would urge my colleague's support of this legislation.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a sad day for our country. We are taking
a big step in the wrong direction. I would say in the direction of
Soviet style agricultural policy. It is hard to know where to begin
with this bill, but let me start with the cost.
Here we are, a Nation at war, running a wartime budget, substantial
deficits this year. We have got a budget baseline that already commits
us to spending $100 billion in farm subsidies over the next 10 years,
and this bill commits us to add to that considerably more than the
advertised additional $75 billion. I say more because this bill
knowingly uses dated commodity price assumptions that lowball the total
cost. It also uses gimmicks such as creating a whole new $100-million-
a-year program and then pretending that that will only be funded for 1
year.
The truth is, the American taxpayer cannot afford this bill, but it
is, in particular, a sad day for Republicans because we know better
than to do this. This is a massive government subsidy of crops that is
going to cause overproduction, that is going to cause further decline
in crop prices and make a bad situation worse, especially for small
farmers such as those in Pennsylvania.
We, who generally believe in freedom and independence and personal
responsibility in the marketplace, we are in danger of systematically
turning farms into dependent serfs of the Federal Government, already
dependent on government for an average of 46 percent of their income.
This bill will increase that to well over 50 percent.
This is a sad day for my Democratic colleagues, who often pride
themselves for their support of the working people and the poorest in
our society. This bill is a massive transfer of wealth from poor
people, and especially urban poor, to many large and wealthy
corporations.
The Environmental Working Group observes that two-thirds of farm
subsidies will go to 10 percent of farms, many of which have an average
income of a quarter of a million dollars a year. The cost for the
average American household is going to average $4,400 over the life of
this bill, $1,800 in higher taxes, $2,600 in higher food prices because
of the price support mechanism.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great lessons of the 20th century clearly was
that command control economics, government-run subsidies, government
manipulations of the marketplace does not work. It leads to a
misallocation of capital, distortion of the marketplace and prices, and
economic ruin, but that is exactly the direction we are taking today
with regard to farm policy in America.
I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, but if
that fails, vote against passage of this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) who has done a wonderful job on the committee in
these last 2 years.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest), the chairman, and the ranking member, for the outstanding
work that they have done in producing the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act.
Despite, Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues may have read in the
newspapers around the country this morning, those of us that represent
farm districts in America know this is the right farm bill for America
today. We know that American farmers are facing their fifth straight
year of record low prices, record high costs of production. We know
that real net farm income is at its lowest since the Great Depression,
and we know that American agriculture is competing in a global economy
where our trading partners are subsidizing their farmers at
considerably more than our country does before this bill.
We are simply equipping our farmers in America with the ability to
compete and survive while we set the table, if I may add, Mr. Speaker,
for presidential trade promotion authority, negotiating down trade
barriers, negotiating down subsidies, to move toward that vision of a
free market global agricultural economy.
Let the fields rejoice and all that is in them. We have a farm bill
that will make American agriculture and America's food supply safe and
secure.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me the time, and I rise again in
strong support of this bill. I want to focus a

[[Page H2037]]

little bit on this issue of the use of certificates, which has been
debated here on the floor and was debated in the conference.
I come from a part of the country where certificates are not used a
whole lot, and I have to admit that I did not have a good understanding
of this program until we had considerable debate in the committee.
I think the people that are concerned about this whole payment limit
question and use of certificates, first of all, should understand that
in this bill there is language that will be law that is going to
require us to look at this issue. So it is not going to go away, and we
have set up a commission that is requiring USDA to come back to us with
a study of this to find out who is actually getting this money and, if
we made these changes, what would be the impact on farm income, land
values and the infrastructure of agriculture.
In this area of certificates, I think that folks that do not
represent farm country, and this is a complicated area, should
understand what the implications are. If we do not have the certificate
program, what will happen is that these folks that hit these
limitations will forfeit these crops to the CCC. So the elimination of
certificates will not change much what is going to happen, other than
it will cost the government more money because this will be forfeited,
and then we will incur the cost of storage, the cost of disposal of
these crops that are forfeited to the CCC.
So actually, the use of certificates is a savings to the government,
and we debated whether there should be reform in this area but,
frankly, could not come to a resolution on what would be a better
system. I think people need to understand that limitation in that area
is not necessarily going to change a whole lot other than to cost the
government more money.
Lastly, in this whole area of people should also understand that we
put a limitation on adjusted gross income for individuals and net
income for corporations. So that anybody that exceeds $2.5 million of
net income is going to be limited in getting these payments.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
for yielding me the time.
When I stood a week or so ago to oppose this bill, it was said from
the other side, well, that fellow does not know anything about
agriculture. If my colleagues look at the end of my right index finger,
it is missing. It was cut off in a wind rower at age 5 on an alfalfa
field.
I have been away from the farm for a long time, but I still know
manure when it is shoveled, and a lot of it is being shoveled here
today.
This farm bill is bad for Americans. It will cost the average
American family over $4,000 in terms of direct taxes and price
supports, inflated prices because of price supports over the next 10
years. We are abandoning the Freedom to Farm Act, and in its place,
putting in a Farm Security Act.
We as Republicans should not be doing this. Democrats should not be
doing it either. We ought to look past special interest politics and
look at what is best for American families across the country, and at
this point I am going to insert an article from The Wall Street
Journal.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2002]

Bloat Watch

(By Jeff Flake)

As a young kid growing up on a farm in northern Arizona,
one of my more unusual chores was what I called ``bloat
watch.'' I would sit atop a hill with knife in hand, watching
cattle grazing on the green alfalfa field below. As soon as
the first critter assumed the bloated ``I've fallen and I
can't get up'' position, I would rush to the victim, raise
the knife and stab just behind the last rib high on the left
side--then taken cover as pent-up gas and alfalfa spewed
heavenward, raining down on boy and bovine. I'm sure that
being stabbed in the side wasn't pleasant, but the
alternative was to be unceremoniously dragged over the hill
to the bone yard.
As we debate the newest farm bill in Congress, I find
myself instinctively reaching for my old knife. There are
many examples of bloated government in Washington, but none
are just begging for the knife as much as our farm policy.
Last week, House and Senate negotiators approved a farm
bill expanding payments to farmers by nearly $50 billion over
the next decade. The bulk of this increase, more than 90%,
will go to farmers producing just five crops: wheat, corn,
rice, cotton and soybean. Two-thirds will go to just 10% of
farmers. The passage of this bill will mark a full scale
repudiation of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which sought
to wean farmers off government assistance.
That the new farm bill is bad policy is not seriously
disputed. It distorts the free market, wreaks havoc with
incentives, further institutionalizes dependency and
jeopardizes our export economy. But it is more than just bad
policy--it is bad politics for Republicans.
The farm bill's $173.5 billion price tag over 10 years make
sour claim as the party of fiscal discipline purely relative.
It is estimated that this legislation will cost the average
American household $4,377 over the next 10 years--$1,805 in
taxes and $2,572 in inflated food prices because of price
supports. That doesn't sound like a message this Republican
wants to run on.
As evidenced in 1994, Republicans win elections when they
draw a sharp contrast with Democrats. When Congressional
Republicans seek to blur the lines, as we've done for the
past several years, Democrats gain ground, as they've done
for the past several years. There is an old political axiom
that goes ``You can never out-Democrat a Democrat.'' While we
Republicans have tested that axiom's limits of late, we ought
to understand that voters will eventually go for the genuine
article. With this approach we might eke out another election
with our slim majority intact, but our days are numbered.
On the other hand, if presented with an articulate
``freedom'' vs. ``security'' argument, most voters will opt
for the former. The dilemma for Republicans is that we've not
only abandoned the freedom argument in principle, we've
dropped the rhetoric as well. Last week, at the same time
Republican conferees on the farm bill were replacing the
Freedom to Farm Act with the Farm Security Act, other House
Republicans were holding a press conference where they
slammed the Democrats for stealing the Republican
Conference's ``Securing America's Future'' theme. Frankly,
I'd rather be accused of stealing that patronizing theme than
coining it. Let the Democrats have it.
In a 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan reminded us that there is
no such thing as ``left'' or ``right.'' Rather, there was
only an ``up'' toward freedom or a ``down'' toward
totalitarianism. ``Those who would sacrifice freedom for
security,'' Mr. Reagan said, ``have already started down the
downward path.''
It is probably too late for Congress to reverse course on
this farm bill. We can only hope that President Bush is
watching, pen in hand, as Congressional Republicans abandon
all discretion and graze on green alfalfa right along with
the Democrats. Being stabbed with a veto pen might not seem
pleasant, but it sure beats ending up in the political bone
yard.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the chairman
of this committee for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of the
farmers and ranchers in Klamath Basin.
I intend to actively support this bill today because of what it is
doing to solve the water problems we face not only in the Klamath
Basin, but across the West. The increase of 80 percent in funding of
conservation programs are what is going to make the difference so that
our farmers get water this year.
It was little over a year ago that the Federal Government cut off the
water to the 1,400 farm families in the basin. Many of them have gone
bankrupt. Most of them had no income. It is an incredible tragedy that
has been allowed to occur.
The chairman was successful in the conference in getting $50 million
earmarked specifically for an environmental quality investment
incentive program that will help solve some of the problems and has
been very supportive of our efforts to resolve the long-term water
needs and problems in this basin to improve water quality and quantity.
This is an extraordinary step forward that will bring real long-term
solutions to the Klamath Basin.
I thank the Chairman for his diligence, his tireless efforts on
behalf of those farmers and ranchers and for the other work in this
farm bill that is going to make an extraordinary difference for the men
and women who make their living off the land in Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
As I have repeatedly informed my colleagues since last April, the
past year has seen a terrible crisis in the Klamath Basin of southern
Oregon and northern California. On April 6 of last year, nearly 1,400
farmers and ranchers were denied water during the 2001 growing season
in large part due to Endangered Species Act issues. Yet, earlier this

[[Page H2038]]

year the highly regarded National Academy of Sciences, NAS, which
reviewed the Government's actions, found that there was ``no
substantial scientific foundation at this time for changing the
operation of the Klamath Project to maintain higher water levels in
Upper Klamath Lake, or higher minimum flows in the Klamath River.'' In
other words, the Government's decisions that crippled the livelihood of
farming and ranching families were not backed up by the science. The
Government's actions were devastating in many ways, causing economic
damage between $135 million and $200 million, depriving wildlife
refuges of water and feed, and dumping lethally hot water into the
Klamath River, thereby threatening the endangered coho salmon the
Government was entrusted to help.
However, just because the Government made poor decisions doesn't mean
there are not significant water quality and quantity problems that must
be dealt with in this basin. That's why I support this farm bill and
the $50 million in funding for the Klamath Basin that is included in
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program section of the bill. It is
a wonderful way to make sure that those funds are spent where they will
do the most good for fish, farmers, and waterfowl.
Since December of last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued
its report criticizing the decisions made by the Government. That
critique has now been included in the new biological assessment, BA,
issued by the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, the President has
created a cabinet-level task force to address the unique and
complicated issues in the Klamath Basin. The farm bill provides an 80
percent increase in conservation funds to pay for the very types of
projects that must be done if we are ever to solve the water quality
and quantity issues in the basin.
I have refused to forget that this is the farm bill, and the purpose
of what we do in the farm bill is to make sure that we have a vibrant
agricultural economy in the Klamath Basin and throughout this country.
The steps taken in the bill will improve fish habitat, will improve
water quality and quantity, and will improve the health of the national
wildlife refuges. By doing all of these things we will improve
significantly the chances that farmers and ranchers in the Klamath
Basin will get the water they need and everyone comes out a winner.
Additionally, the conference committee was kind enough to include a
feasibility study I crafted that was passed unanimously by this House
last October, only to languish in the other body. This feasibility
study is needed to address an imminent endangered species habitat claim
against the Chiloquin Dam is southern Oregon, which is the Modoc Point
Irrigation District's current gravity flow diversion source. This dam
blocks endangered suckers from reaching 95 percent of their former
spawning and juvenile rearing habitat in the warm water reaches of the
Sprague River. Several parties have identified the Chiloquin Dam as
constituting a significant habitat problem for endangered suckers. They
include: The Klamath Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of
Reclamation, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Klamath
Water Users Association. This feasibility study was constructed in
consultation with both the Modoc Point Irrigation District and the
Klamath Tribes.
The study will include: Review of all alternatives for providing
passage, including the removal of the dam; determination of the most
appropriate alternative; development of recommendations for
implementing the alternative; and examination of mitigation needed for
upstream and downstream water users as a result of such implementation.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see we have been working on this issue
diligently for some time and I would be remiss if I did not thank a few
Members and staff for their support during this process. I would like
to especially thank Chairman Combest for putting these provisions in
the farm bill. Congressman Pombo also gave me great counsel throughout
the process. Chairman Hansen and Chairman Young, the conferees from the
House Resources Committee, were invaluable. And finally, Doug Yoder and
Steve Petersen from the Resources Committee and Lance Kotschwar and
Bill O'Conner from the Agriculture Committee went to great lengths to
secure this needed help for the Klamath Basin. I'm indebted to all of
them.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) for yielding me the time.
I also want to congratulate him and our chairman for their diligent
work and that a word needs to be said about the process. It was an
engaged process. It was over 2 years. Many individuals and
representative companies and organizations had their day. Rather,
everyone had their day. I am not sure but certainly it was not for a
lack of trying, was not lack of openness and effort to be involved in
it. So process does help as well as the end product.
This is not indeed a perfect bill. With any bill this size there will
be winners and losers. It is not perfect by any means. There are indeed
winners. The winners hopefully will be our farmers who indeed will have
opportunity to know about what rules will work.
There are some things that go too far in my judgment, but it is a
bill that is basically going to ensure a safety net for our farmers,
and it also takes the uncertainty out of our market fluctuation.
More importantly for me, Mr. Speaker, there are indeed some great
strides made for constituents that I represent and constituents in
disadvantaged communities throughout this country. I believe that the
food stamp program is one of the most effective tools we have to ensure
that no parent in America is unable to feed their children. It is our
Nation's largest child nutrition program, and through this bill we make
a number of modifications that allow working families, children,
elderly to have food. Additionally, we also make provisions
internationally as well.
I would be remiss not to say that my peanut farmers are desperately
needing some certainty of that. Indeed that is a costly program, I will
admit that, but it is costly when we ask sectors of our economy to make
tremendous change and transition. So American taxpayers are being asked
to assist in this transition.
It is a bill that is worthy of our support. It is a bill indeed if it
is to go back to conference to be rewritten means that our farmers will
have more uncertainty than they have now.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the food stamp program is one of the most
effective tools we have to ensure that no parents in America are unable
to feed their children. It is our Nation's largest child nutrition
program. It helps us fulfill our basic responsibility to assist the
neediest among us in meeting their most basic need, proper nutrition.
In my years on the Agriculture Committee, I have worked to strengthen
the food stamp safety net so that it can help provide nutritionally
adequate diets to families in our Nation's rural and urban areas alike.
I am delighted that the nutrition title of the farm bill that is
before us today contains many significant improvements that are
targeted toward low-income families with children, particularly the
working poor. It goes a long way toward restoring food stamp benefits
to legal immigrants and their families by ensuring that all legal
immigrant children are eligible for food stamps and by incorporating
the administration's proposal to make food stamps available to all
otherwise eligible legal immigrants after they have lived in the United
States for 5 years. The bill will allow transitional food stamps for
families that are leaving welfare to help keep them connected to this
critical work support program. It also simplifies the program, which
will reduce paper work and red tape and remove some barriers that
eligible families face in trying to receive food stamps.
And, on another positive note, the title contains additional money
for the Emergency Food Assistance Program to help our Nation's food
pantries and soup kitchens respond to the growing demands they have
faced in recent years.
I thank Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Combest for their leadership on the farm
bill and on the nutrition title in particular. I want to associate
myself with Mr. Stenholm's statement on the nutrition title and I would
like to add a few remarks on some of the key provisions.
The bill makes a remarkable improvement to food stamp eligibility for
legal immigrants. I am pleased that many of my colleagues from the
other side of the aisle have joined with President Bush to recognize
that the restrictions on immigrant eligibility from welfare reform went
too far and put too many low-income immigrant families with children,
many of whom are citizens, at risk.
The final agreement restores food stamps to all eligible legal
immigrant children and does so without requiring sponsor deeming. This
should simplify the message that States and advocates provide to needy
families. Poor children are eligible for food stamps, period.
We conformed food stamp eligibility rules for legal immigrant adults
to those in TANF and Medicaid. This should make it easier for the
States to administer the three programs jointly. Qualified immigrants
who came to the United States at least 5 years ago will be eligible for
food stamps. Of course, this is subject to the sponsor deeming rules.
Because USDA's rules on sponsor deeming are sensible and balanced, we
choose to continue the current

[[Page H2039]]

USDA sponsor deeming rules. We have no intention of sabotaging this
restoration by making low-income sponsors that live with eligible
immigrants and receive food stamps to incur a liability because their
family member is part of their food stamp household.

Another important benefit improvement in the bill is the reform of
the food stamp standard deduction for all households. Prior to 1995,
the food stamp standard deduction had adjusted for inflation each year
to reflect that fact that the cost of basic and necessary expenses that
households have to make before purchasing food rise each year. The
standard was frozen in 1995 for cost savings and has been $134 ever
since. Under this legislation, the standard will be adjusted for
inflation each year. In addition, it will be scaled to household size
to reflect the fact that larger households have higher basic living
expenses. This provision will take effect this fall, which may be
difficult for some states. I encourage USDA to be flexible with states
that are doing the best they can but who cannot implement on time.
Despite these critical benefit improvements, I am deeply disappointed
that the final agreement on the farm bill does not include a Senate
provision that would have modestly eased one of the very harshest
provisions of the 1996 welfare law, the 3-month time limit on
participation by unemployed childless adults. The provision denies food
stamps to some of our Nation's most vulnerable individuals. The
provision disproportionately affects African-Americans, veterans, and
the homeless, among other groups. While I have been pleased with the
steps USDA has taken to implement this overly restrictive provision in
regulation and urge the Secretary to continue to do everything she can
to ease the harsh effects of this provision, I hope that Congress can
revisit the eligibility rules for this group at some point in the
future.
While we did not ease the 3-month time limit, the farm bill does
eliminate the 80 percent set-aside of unmatched Federal employment and
training funds for individuals subject to the time limit. Nonetheless,
the new rules require USDA to give this population, and States that
elect to serve them, special consideration when allocating employment
and training funds among states. States that serve large numbers of
unemployed childless adults should continue to have the resources to do
so.
On a positive note, this bill gives States more opportunity to
develop employment and training services that do not meet the strict
definition of a work activity under the 3-month time limit. Services
such as job search and programs lasting less than 20 hours per week may
not be funded with these monies. While individuals subject to the time
limit who participate in these activities will not meet the definition
of work for purposes of the 3-month time limit, the services may help
them find employment before the three months expire.
Turning toward another provision, one of our most important goals in
designing this food stamp reauthorization was to make sure that
families leaving welfare stay connected with the food stamp program.
Currently as many as two-thirds of households leaving cash assistance
for work, a time-limit or other reasons do not continue their
enrollment in the food stamp program. These families still have very
low incomes and are still eligible for food stamps. It was a priority
to us to find a way to ensure that these families keep receiving these
critical nutrition benefits. States and client advocates have said that
families fall off the program because clients are confused about their
on-going eligibility and that they often fail to complete paperwork
requests from state agencies which result in their termination from the
food stamp program.

The legislation gives States a very attractive new option that should
make it quite simple to continue food stamps with no paperwork
whatsoever to families leaving TANF. When a household leaves TANF, the
States would simply recalculate its food stamps by subtracting the cash
benefit from the family's income. No questions would be asked of the
household. This new transitional food stamp amount would be the correct
amount for the next 5 months.
Under this new option, we can be sure that poor families receive the
nutrition assistance that they need to feed their families without any
hassles or risks of losing the benefits for procedural reasons. If, at
some point during the 5-month transitional period, the family thought
that they might be eligible for more food stamps because their
circumstances changed, they could always reapply for a higher benefit
amount. This new approach should result in a dramatically higher share
of families leaving welfare for work to continue receiving food stamps.
This legislation also responds to requests from States and clients to
make the food stamp program simpler to administer and easier to
understand. Unfortunately, just over half of eligible low-income
families participate in the food stamp program. Many poor families are
frustrated that they have to provide the State agencies with too much
paperwork on unimportant details of their life and finances. And they
are unhappy about having to reapply for benefits so frequently.
The nutrition title responds to this complaint by allowing for 6
months of continuous eligibility--unless the household's income rises
above 130 percent of the poverty line or the State has some reason to
believe that the family is ineligible. If States do not want to provide
continuous eligibility, they can freeze households deductions,
eliminating many reporting requirements in between certification
periods. In this case a household would have to report changes in their
earnings, but all other change reporting would be optional. States
would only have to respond if the household reported a change in
earnings or if they moved.
The bill also allows States to align the definitions of income and
resources in the food stamp program with the ones that they apply in
their Medicaid and TANF programs. This will give States unprecedented
authority to align these aspects of eligibility across the three
programs. USDA must now allow States to use data from their child
support systems to determine what a household's child support deduction
will be even if that data is somewhat old. This will relieve the
household of having to keep track of every change in the payments that
they make.
The utility component of the shelter deduction has been dramatically
simplified. States now have an option that would require a household to
only show one utility bill, other than a phone bill, in order to get a
standard utility allowance. These changes should ensure that many more
eligible families find it easier to get the help that they need.
I do wish that we had found ways to ease paperwork and office
requirements on the elderly and disabled. It is my hope that USDA will
explore this area and attempt to ease those burdens administratively.
I am delighted that we were able to work with the Senate and the
administration to reform the food stamp quality control system. The
current system set up half the States for failure by sanctioning all
States with error rates above the national average. That is unfair. At
least until very recently, it also has created inappropriate
disincentives for states to serve large numbers of earners or
immigrants because these households typically are more error-prone.
The new system targets sanctions at those states with persistently
high error rates rather than any State above the national average. It
also refocuses bonus payments away from just payment accuracy and will
institute a new set of performance measures that will balance payment
accuracy along with other measures of strong administration such as
client service.
One element of the Senate-passed bill that interested me a great deal
was adjustments to sanctions for States doing a particularly good job
of serving low-wage working families or immigrant households. As it
happens, however, we did not need to include this in the conference
report because USDA assured the conferees that it would continue past
practice and adjust sanction liabilities to eliminate the impact of
high or rising proportions of working poor households or low-income
immigrants. Given the Department's commitment to the adjustments, we
saw no need to include adjustments in the statutory changes to the
system.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have achieved in this nutrition
title. I believe that the farm bill strengthens the food stamp program
by improving benefits and easing access for our low-income working
families. This outcome is good for families, good for communities and
good for farmers.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair please give us once again
the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 9
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.

{time} 1200

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, other
than my closing on the floor.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, to understate the phrase, this has been a very difficult
process, trying to put together a farm bill and projecting out in
future years the needs of our family farmers, but we can still produce
a better result. We need a farm bill, a farm bill that will

[[Page H2040]]

be a more fair and balanced farm bill for all our family farmers in all
regions of the country.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend, at the conclusion of the debate,
to offer a motion to recommit with instructions, based on a motion that
already passed this House a little over 2 weeks ago with 265 Members of
this House on record supporting a $275,000 meaningful payment
limitation cap consistent with the language that is already in the
Senate bill and consistent with the majority wishes in the United
States Senate.
There exists a majority in both the House and the Senate now to take
this approach to farm policy, so we cannot only have a safety net for
our family farmers but also be able to do it within the realm of fiscal
responsibility and fiscal discipline; being able to provide more
benefits to family farmers in all regions, while also maintaining the
hope and promise that we can open up greater market access to
agriculture products produced in this country. That has to be a part of
any long-term farm policy.
Without a meaningful payment limitation cap, the next round of trade
talks are in serious jeopardy, in my opinion. We are hearing the clash
of the international community coming down on this Congress with the
farm bill that is before us today, telling us it will jeopardize the
ability to negotiate fair trade agreements for our American producers.
With the money and resources that are freed up with this payment cap,
we would have more for volunteer and incentive-based conservation
programs, programs that will lead to better watershed management,
quality water supplies, the protection of wildlife and fish habitat,
and, ultimately, the protection of productive farm land itself. We
would be able to have additional resources for agriculture research,
for rural development and nutrition programs, but also for the new
energy program, relying on biomass and biofuels, which is the wave of
the future.
Now, this is the way it should be decided, through a debate and by a
vote. It should not be a clash of personalities; rather, an honest
debate over ideas. I believe this motion to commit will produce a
better farm bill at the end of the day and I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm
Commodities and Risk Management.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to commend the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture for
crafting what I think is good sound farm policy and it will be a
tremendous benefit to every farmer in America with this farm bill.
My State is the largest peanut-producing State in the country, and my
district happens to be the second largest peanut-producing district. We
are very proud of that. We have a long and rich heritage. The peanut
program in this bill is getting completely restructured and retooled
for the reason that we have had a fight over the peanut program every
year that I have served in this body.
There has been a philosophical objection to the way the peanut
program was crafted because of the quota program that existed within
that peanut program. Well, this year our peanut industry has gotten
together as a whole and has made a decision we need to do what is best
for the long-term interest of the peanut industry, and so we have
drastically changed the peanut program within this farm bill, a program
that now is going to benefit our quota holders, our producers, as well
as our industrial base within the peanut community.
I am very pleased with the results we came out with. Is it perfect?
No. But it does provide benefit to every aspect of the industry, and
allows the peanut industry, particularly in my State, to have a long-
term viable future. I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and thank him and the ranking member for their great work on this
bill. I think our conferees worked hard, did a tremendous job, kept
this on focus, and my belief is that it was as likely as not that we
could have wound up at the end of that conference without a farm bill
if it had not been for the great dedication of the House conferees to
make this happen.
This is a good bill. It sets the stage for several years of
agriculture stability, provides a much-needed safety net that was not
present in the last farm bill, it continues to decouple payments,
allows updating of acreage, and does good things in dairy. More
importantly, it establishes the rules and does that early enough that
it may even have some positive impact this year.
We all worked hard to get this bill out. Of course, the House passed
a bill months ago. Again, our conferees, the chairman and the ranking
member, as they bring this bill to the floor, have a lot to be proud
of. Farm families in America have a lot to look to with appreciation
for the job we have done, the job I believe we will do today as we pass
this bill, and I look forward to its implementation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I have been involved in writing Federal farm
legislation since the 1960s, when I was Michigan chairman of
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and then I got an
appointment in 1970 to be Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs in
USDA down here in Washington.
I appreciate the effort that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) have gone through in arguing
how they resolved many of the disputed issues in this bill as we try to
get something for the whole country. But it seems to me, and I would
suggest to my colleagues, that our goal in farm policy should be that
we develop and help the mainstream family farmers in this country.
And you can argue how big is a family farm, but if you are talking
about 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, 80,000 acres owned by the big
landholders, that now have a loophole provision that is not subject to
any payment limitation, then you are talking about a situation that
puts the average family farmer at a disadvantage. The average
commercial farm operation in this country is a little over 900 acres.
I am disappointed. This House, on my motion to recommit on April 18,
voted overwhelmingly, 265 votes, to have the Senate provisions on
payment limitations. This was not acknowledged by the conferees. The
conferees should not be the House, they should reflect the will of the
House.
Senator Grassley just called me and said, look, we have done some
whipping; we originally passed that provision for payment limitations
by a little over two-thirds; we will accept the motion to recommit of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to reinstate the Senate payment
limitations.
The Senate per farmer, per year payment limitation gets rid of the
loophole. The loophole is the fact that benefits from generic
certificates are not included as part of the pay limitation. Without
getting into detail, it is a maneuver where the loan price support
programs do not come into play. As long as there is the tremendous
pressures, special interest pressure, to have unlimited payment
limitations that place our family farms at a disadvantage, I am very
concerned about the future of ag legislation in the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair wishes to inform
Members that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 9 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman would also inquire as to the
closing rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the Member that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has the right to close.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

[[Page H2041]]

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the
ranking member and the conference committee for their hard work in
putting this good conference together.
There has been much said that this bill does not help family farmers
and it helps big corporate farmers. Well, the provision that is in this
bill, that I have worked for for 3\1/2\ years and that I am so proud
of, is the dairy provision, and that is for family farmers. That is for
every dairy farmer in the country. And there is a limit to the size of
production that can receive a countercyclical support payment.
So that is very good for family farmers, and it is very good for
conservation because it spreads the animals out across the country, and
it is good for consumers because it assures us of a locally produced
fresh supply of milk throughout this country.
So I would ask all the Members from both sides of the aisle who are
in the dairy coalition to support this bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. This
agreement provides a strong safety net for our Nation's family farmers
as well as for the small and disadvantaged farmers. It ensures a
flexible, affordable, and top quality food supply for our consumers
while strengthening our national security. It provides a 6-year
reauthorization of the farm, rural development, conservation, and
nutrition programs that are administered by USDA.
The bill provides nearly 80 percent more funding for conservation
programs than the current law provides, providing environmental
benefits for all Americans. The bill will help producers of all
commodities stay on the lands that they hold and that they love so much
so that they continue their livelihood while conserving our natural
resources for future generations.
While not perfect, the agreement today also addresses many of the
needs of those in southwest Georgia, in the second district, in terms
of making strides in restructuring the crucially important peanut
program. Let us not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Let
us pass this conference report today for our farmers so that we can
move forward with this year's planting season and have American
agriculture continue to be the best in the world.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), my friend and colleague on the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill with a great deal of personal anguish because of the respect I
have for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). But as a Member of Congress serving on the
Committee on Agriculture, and as a farmer, I believe this is not the
right policy for U.S. agriculture in this new century.
Henry Wallace, back in the 1930s, when he was Secretary of
Agriculture under President Roosevelt, said when they instituted
programs very similar to these that these were temporary solutions to
deal with an emergency. We are still dealing with the same temporary
solutions. And where has it gotten us?

{time} 1215

It has gotten us to the point where last year 40 percent of net farm
income in this country was government taxpayer dollars. And with the
bill that we are passing today, that 40 percent will increase to 50
percent in the near term. Too many times we hear people do not
understand how little of agriculture is actually receiving these
taxpayer subsidies. Eighty percent of the agricultural products that
are produced in this country receive not 1 cent of taxpayer money.
We can go into any supermarket and walk down the produce aisle, and
every product in that produce aisle does not get a taxpayer subsidy.
The meat and poultry aisle, there is not one product that gets a direct
subsidy from the taxpayer. We can go down the canned fruit and canned
vegetable aisle, and not one product there gets a subsidy from the
government. We are passing a program that is going to ensure that 20
percent of the agricultural commodities that are grown in this country
are going to get 70 percent of $170 billion over the next 10 years, and
that is wrong.
I am concerned that policies in this bill are going to ensure that we
are going to continue to see overproduction because of the way that we
have structured our marketing loan programs and our counter-cyclical
payments.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to have a safety net, but we need
to do so in a manner that does not distort the marketplace, and this
bill does that at the expense of taxpayers. It is not only at the
expense of taxpayers, this bill creates distortions against other
farmers throughout this country.
There has been a lot of talk about the peanut program which is crying
out for reform. It does not cost taxpayers a dollar right now. But the
reform that is embodied in this bill will result in taxpayers spending
$4 billion over the next decade. That is not appropriate. What it also
will ensure is that it will increase the supply of peanuts that are in
the marketplace.
When I represent a district that has an almond industry that is twice
the size of the peanut industry, they are going to be facing increased
competition with peanuts that being subsidized by the taxpayer, that
are going to drive down the price of the pistachios, walnuts and
almonds that receive no taxpayer support because of the taxpayers
stepping in providing $4 billion to a competitive product in the snack
food market. That is wrong.
We also have another problem in the dairy program. We are embarking
on a path with the dairy program that is going to result in taxpayers
most likely putting out $2 billion. What are they going to get for that
$2 billion, increased production, which is also going to require these
same taxpayers to purchase more butter and powder so they are going to
be out more money.
What are other dairy farmers going to face? They are going to see
lower prices because of this new taxpayer subsidy, which is going to
result in farmers in California, dairy farmers, losing over $6 million
in the next 3 years.
Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to pass a policy that would move
us into a new direction that could have invested in products and
enhanced the productivity and competitiveness of our farmers, and we
lost that opportunity. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this
bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report and to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their leadership as we do a
bill that is good for our farmers, good for the environment,
conservation, and good for our catfish farmers in Mississippi as we
stop the Vietnamese imports of false labeling, of the taking the good
name that we have developed in the southeast of the good catfish, good
flavor, the good taste.
I also want to say that this is good for research as we see our land
grant universities increase in research, for our rural communities, and
as we see our key infrastructure needs being met.
As a sportsman, it will be good for wildlife as we see the CRP and
WRP programs almost double. I support this legislation which
establishes a safety net so we can plan and plant and prosper in
Mississippi and across the country in agriculture. This is good
legislation, a good farm bill, and I thank the chairman for his good
work.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Agriculture for the good job
that they have done. I have some serious concerns about this bill, and
my concerns are that our sugar program continues to drive food
processors and candy makers out of business in my community. We are
continuing to lose jobs by the hundreds because they cannot afford the
high cost and the high prices that they are paying for sugar.

[[Page H2042]]

I also have some concerns that the civil rights, that the concerns
expressed by minority farmers are not adequately addressed. I grew up
on a small farm, and so I know what minority farmers are feeling and
what their experiences are.
I hope as we continue to develop our agricultural policy, that we
take those concerns and put them at the top of the list rather than the
bottom of the list. Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for the work that
they have done, but I cannot support a bill that will not provide for
the food processors in my community to stay in business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair wishes to inform
Members that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock
and Horticulture.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill; but it is not
a perfect bill. There are problems. I have had the same problems that
the chairman and the ranking member had in trying to work through this
particular piece of legislation to get the best possible bill that we
could to be enacted into law.
For those Members who have stood up this morning and talked about how
they were concerned about it being bad farm policy. I would caution
them on the motion to recommit. If Members think that there is a
problem with the current bill, look at the motion to recommit. That is
the worst possible farm policy that we could adopt in any way. We turn
it into a welfare program. We try to say that the purpose of farm
policy is to support those small, disadvantaged farmers so that they
can get a welfare check. Well, if that is what we really want, we
should just make it a welfare program. That is a huge problem.
It also transfers money into conservation title. At a time when we
are fighting to open markets for us to ship into and other markets to
ship into us, they want to take as much land as they possibly can out
of production and ship that production offshore.
Mr. Speaker, that is the worst possible farm policy that we could
possibly come up with as the U.S. Congress. No matter what we do on
this bill, Members have to vote, begins the motion to recommit.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I pointed out my broad concern with the high
loan rates that we have in this bill and the fact that it will depress
commodity prices requiring more of net farm income to come from the
government. Last year's figure was 40 percent of net farm income came
from the government. I believe with lower prices as a result of this
bill, that number will exceed 50 percent quickly.
There are other problems with the bill. I think the message this
sends to our trading partners around the world is the wrong message.
These payments will violate our trade agreements with the World Trade
Organization, and send a strong signal to our allies who worked with us
to reduce trade barriers around the world that we are not serious about
this. It tells our competitors we are going to continue to do what we
have been asking them not to do.
Secondly, when it comes to the issue of labeling, I think it violates
our agreement with our neighbors, Mexico and Canada, and I think it is
discriminatory against our other trading partners around the world. So
from a trade standpoint, I think we are sending some mixed and bad
messages.
The dairy program that we have contained in this bill is totally
unnecessary. Over the last 4 years, in all of agriculture, dairy prices
were at record highs. Dairy farmers had the best 4 years they ever had.
Why do we need to spend $2 billion for dairy? Pure and simple, for
political reasons coming from the other body. It is unnecessary, it
will drive down prices, and will drive up exposure to the taxpayers.
But as I close, as Members of Congress, we are here, and we are here
to make decisions on behalf of our constituents. As I said earlier,
this is not an easy decision on my part or others who are opposing this
bill. We have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) who have guided this
process; but we have to make a decision as Members of Congress, and the
decision I have made, reluctantly, is to oppose this bill because in
the end, it will lead to much bigger problems.
We have heard that if we do not pass this bill, we will have really
big problems. We can do an emergency supplemental to fix those problems
in the short run, and we can produce this bill in a much more sane
political environment that will give us a much better product after the
election early next year.
Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make to my colleagues is that we can
do better. I know that it is a difficult process to come up with a
uniform policy for the whole country, but the fact is that we can do
better. We must do better to balance the interest amongst those in
agriculture, and to balance the interest of those in agriculture with
the interest of the taxpayers and others who are always here seeking
our government help.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman would feel better if he
recognizes, as I do, that in this bill there is a continued movement by
the farm communities towards market orientation, and that should help
the gentleman.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I would argue that the opposite is
exactly true. I reluctantly urge Members to vote no on this bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the remaining time and correct some
of the misstatements that have been made concerning this bill.
To those that suggest that we need a little more time, where were
they for the last 2\1/2\ years when the committee and subcommittees
held numerous hearings all over the country? I did not notice many of
my colleagues being the most vocal being in many of the hearings much
of the time.
To those that suggest that these are too high loans for cotton, which
has come under a little bit of discussion, the loan rate for cotton in
this bill is 52 cents. That is exactly what it was in 1986. So to those
that suggest we have too high loans, they are completely ignoring
market reality.
To those that said that we are getting 40 percent of our income from
the government, the 2000 figures from WTO show that the United States
farmer receives 22 percent of his income from the government, which I
agree is too high, but the farmers in the European Union gets 38
percent of their income from government.
A lot of the other comments today, particularly some of the editorial
comments that we have had on this bill, reminds me what President
Eisenhower said in the 1950s: ``Farming looks mighty easy when your
tractor is a pencil, and you are a thousand miles away from the corn
patch.''
I think many of the comments that have been made in the editorial
pages are completely ignoring the market reality that we have down on
the farm, particularly when we see conservation, that we did not do
enough on conservation. There is an 80 percent increase in this bill,
the largest single increase in conservation spending, I believe, in the
history of the Congress.
Budgetary responsibility, take a look at what we have done time and
time again regarding emergency ad hoc disaster assistance: $30 billion
over the last 4 years. What we do in this bill is put in
predictability. The lion's share of spending in this bill does not go
to stimulate production, only $2.8 billion goes toward marketing loans.
The rest goes for nutrition, trade, conservation, and rural
development. That is not quite what was stated on this floor.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the $73.5 billion. This year
the American farmer and rancher will export $54.5 billion worth of our
commodities. If you multiply that by 10, that means the return on
investment for the

[[Page H2043]]

United States taxpayer will be $545 billion, assuming we do not gain
any additional market share.
Now, I think it is particularly interesting that some of our foreign
competitors are lending their voices to criticism of the work of the
bill that we put before the full House today.
The European Union Commissioner has said that the United States
should receive a failing grade on the farm bill. He recently said in a
statement of April 30, ``I am astonished by claims made in the United
States Congress that much of these price-linked subsidies would not be
counted against U.S. commitments. The U.S. will have to respect WTO
rules.''
Absolutely we will respect WTO rules. Nothing in this bill and what
the Committee on Agriculture has recommended in this conference bill
has anything other than we will respect WTO rules. I say to the
Agriculture Commissioner of the European Union that his facts are wrong
and that this conference report will comply with all of the U.S. trade
obligations within the WTO.
In fact, it is interesting to me, the European Union's commissioner
is saying this because he seems to be trying to draw attention away
from his own problems subsidizing agriculture.
Basically what we are doing with this bill, we are saying loudly and
clearly as we enter the next WTO round, the United States Government
will stand shoulder to shoulder with our producers in the international
marketplace and we will negotiate down these subsidies, but we will
demand that other countries do an equivalent amount, instead of what
has happened to us time and time and time again in previous
negotiations. We seem to be the ones to cut.
When you have a situation today in which European farmers are
subsidized by over $300 an acre, and we are in the $40 range, is that
fair? Is that a level playing field? I say to my friends until Europe,
let us negotiate them down. Let us recognize that, yes, all farmers
would be better off if we did not have as much government involvement,
but we are not going to unilaterally disarm our farmers. And those who
choose to vote for the motion to recommit or against this bill, that is
exactly what you are doing.
Finally, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, time and time again we ignore
this one fact: we as a Nation are blessed to live in a country that has
the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest
food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in
the world. That does not happen by accident.
That happens because, time and time again, we have had agricultural
programs that recognize the importance, yes, of the safety net to our
producers, but also to conservation, to food stamps, to feeding people,
to addressing the critical needs in rural development. We have always
done this. And this bill today, one of the strongest titles is the
nutrition title. It distinguishes itself as one of the most important
pieces of food stamp legislation since the landmark 1977 act 25 years
ago.
The most significant program simplification since the 1977 act is in
this bill. Many of the title provisions are targeted toward low-income
families with children, particularly the working poor. The bill will
allow transitional food stamps for families that are leaving welfare.
The things we have said over and over that we want to accomplish, this
bill accomplishes it in the nutritional title.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion
to recommit. It will not make the bill better. I encourage my
colleagues to support this balanced bill that does not only what our
American farmers want done but the 280 million American consumers that
will benefit from that which we are about to pass.
Mr. Speaker, I have always believed a strong nutrition title is a
crucial part of any farm bill. That is particularly so when we can
improve our ability to support hard-working low-income families and to
ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to obtain a
nutritionally adequate diet. Doing so gives balance to the bill and
benefits both production agriculture and low-income Americans. I am
pleased that this year's farm bill has a nutrition title that all of us
can be proud to support.
The nutrition title stands out in several respects. It strengthens
incentives for families to work and thereby promotes welfare reform
goals. It does so by making food stamps better available to low-income
working poor families that do not want to get welfare. It does so by
facilitating the transition from welfare to work. It does so by
targeting relief on needy families with children, particularly the
working poor. And, it does so by simplifying the program. Under this
bill, States and low-income households alike should find less paperwork
and red tape. We can reduce errors while also removing some obstacles
to eligible working families receiving food stamps.
The nutrition title contains a number of reforms that the states have
been calling for on a bipartisan basis, including restored eligibility
to legal immigrants that play by the rules. In addition, the title adds
funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program to help food banks
and food pantries meet the needs they face.
I would particularly like to thank Chairman Combest, Representative
Goodlatte and Representative Clayton as well as all the members of the
House Agriculture Committee for their work on this title. I am pleased
that we have developed a title with strong bipartisan support believe
that it will make concrete improvements in the nutrition safety net for
low-income families.
Of course, I know that most Members have not had the opportunity to
pore over the dense legislative language of the nutrition title in
detail. I therefore would like to take this opportunity to explain some
of the key food stamp provisions on behalf of myself and Representative
Clayton, the ranking member on the Department Operations, Oversight,
Nutrition and Forestry subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, so
that Members can have an idea how much this title has achieved and what
an important component it is of this overall legislation.
One of our top priorities in this legislation is to help low-income
families make the transition from welfare to work. Significant research
shows that many families that leave the TANF cash assistance program do
not receive food stamps even though they have very low-incomes and
remain eligible. The Urban Institute found that only 40 percent of
families that leave welfare continue to receive food stamps. This has
meant that hundreds of thousands of low-income families that worked
their way off welfare, only to lose one of the most critical work
supports available to them--food stamps,

Food stamps can mean the difference between whether these families
have enough income to put food on the table every day. It is in
everyone's interest for these families' difficult transitions to be
successful. A family is unlikely to regard its transition from welfare
to work as a success if it cannot feed itself.
This legislation offers states a new option called transitional food
stamps that would eliminate food stamp paperwork requirements for those
families leaving TANF. This should enhance the food stamp program's
ability to support families moving from welfare to work. States can
provide this new transitional benefit to any category of eligible
household that they choose except certain households under sanction for
misconduct.
When a household leaves the state's cash assistance program, the
state would simply recalculate their food stamp benefits without the
cash benefits. This new amount would be the correct food stamp amount
for all purposes and would be frozen for the next 5 months. There would
be no contact between the state and the household at the beginning of
the transitional period. Thus, the household would not have to comply
with any procedural requirements to remain on the program.
We would give states the flexibility to make this a transitional
benefit a freeze or to make adjustments for changes they become aware
of in other programs. These changes could include a cost of living
adjustment in Social Security benefits or a newborn child whom the
state is covering under Medicaid or SCHIP. Of course, states would
always have to adjust for automatic changes in the food stamp program
such as the Thrifty Food Plan or the standard deduction.
As is always the case during a certification period, a household
would retain the right to reapply to have its food stamps recalculated
based on its current circumstances. Some households likely will
experience major changes that render their transitional benefit amounts
inadequate. These could include the loss of employment or the birth of
a child. In these cases, the household may decide it is worth its while
to go through the process of reapplying to have its benefits adjusted
accordingly.
I am very pleased that the nutrition title will make significant
strides toward simplifying the food stamp program. This can only help
states, eligibility workers, working poor families, and everyone else
connected with the program.
Last year, America's Second Harvest released a report entitled, ``The
Red Tape Divide.'' This report detailed how long and complicated food
stamp applications around the

[[Page H2044]]

country are. Some of the problem is because some states have yet to
take steps to simplify their applications. But another part of the
problem is that federal food stamp rules require far too much detail
from households on unimportant matters.

This legislation provides states with several new options to
streamline the food stamp program. These should result in less
paperwork for those households already participating in the program as
well as shorter food stamp applications. USDA should work with states
to ensure that states are able to implement these provisions on the
effective dates and need not wait for regulations.
Arguably, the biggest impact will come from the provision allowing
states to extend ``semiannual reporting'' to a broader group of
households. Currently, states may only apply semiannual reporting to
households with earnings. Semiannual reporting eliminates a household's
reporting obligations for 6 months at a time unless its income rises
the program's gross income limit. The household provides information
once every 6 months and the state relies upon this snapshot to issue
benefits for the next 6 months.
This will significantly reduce paperwork and other administrative
burdens on both participating households and state agencies. It
directly responds to states' request to have more latitude within this
option. This should encourage more states to adopt the option. It also
should held align reporting rules among food stamps, TANF, and
Medicaid. We encourage USDA to work with HHS to issue joint guidance on
how states may use this new option to reduce overall reporting burdens
for families as well as to better coordinate reporting requirements.
For example, we are concerned that under the current option that when
a household reports a change for the purposes of the Medicaid program
it could threaten the household's receipt of food stamps. This could be
true even though the household remains eligible for food stamps. That
makes no sense. A household should not be at risk of losing its food
stamps unless the state has reason to believe that the household is no
longer eligible for food stamps.
In crafting this proposal, we assume that the Department's major
procedural rules for monthly reporting will apply to this option as
well. For example, if a household files a late or incomplete semiannual
report, it should be given an opportunity to supply the missing
information.
We were disappointed not to have found a way to reduce reporting
burdens significantly for the elderly, the disabled and other groups
excluded from periodic reporting. I hope USDA will explore options that
could ease their reporting requirements for these households as well so
that we can build upon this legislation's momentum.
The bill allows states to align the definitions of income and
resources in the food stamp program with the ones they apply in their
Medicaid or TANF programs. Of course, the food stamp income and
resource eligibility thresholds will remain, but these two provisions
should give states sweeping new authority to eliminate unnecessary
questions on their food stamp applications form about livestock, plasma
sales state work study programs, individual retirement accounts,
interest income, etc. We do include modest lists of items that states
may not exclude under the new authority to conform. Obviously these
lists are intended only to limit exclusions under the new paragraphs we
are adding to the act. They do not affect exclusions under other
paragraphs of sections 5(d) or (g). We urge the Secretary to add to
these lists only where absolutely essential to ensure that food stamp
benefits reasonably reflect need.

Along with simplifying the reporting and counting of income, we also
simplified the deductions states apply to determine households'
incomes. The shelter deduction targets food stamp benefits to
households that have the most trouble affording a nutritious diet
because their incomes are so low they have little left over for food
after paying their shelter costs. Households typically can deduct
utility expenses in addition to their rent or mortgage, other payments
they must make to get or keep ownership of their homes, fire insurance,
and a few other costs.
Since utility expenses vary so much from month to month, the program
allows states to calculate households' utility costs with a fixed
estimate, or standard utility allowance, in lieu of computing each
household's particular utility bills. In welfare reform, we allowed
states to require that all households's shelter deductions be
calculated based on such a standard utility allowance or SUA.
In this bill, we further simplify the SUA by allowing some states to
eliminate some of the current restrictions on when households may claim
it. This provision would apply if the state took the option from
welfare reform to require household to use the standard instead of
their actual utility bills. In these states, if a household can show
that it has at least one utility bill, other than just a telephone
bill, the household would receive the SUA. It would not matter if the
household was doubled up with another family or individual.
In recent years we have seen the utility costs households face soar
in certain areas of the country because of various energy crises. I
expect that these mandatory standards will be updated each year to
reflect rising utility costs in the state. That will ensure that needy
families do not have to choose between buying food for their families
and paying their heat and other utility bills.
I am pleased that we were able to craft this legislation so that the
new simplification options can begin to make a difference soon. On
several of them USDA is likely want to promulgate rules. States will
not have to wait for USDA to do so, however, before implementing the
new options. For example, they can conform their definitions of income
and resources to those in TANF or Medicaid without waiting for USDA to
promulgate regulations about the items that cannot be excluded in the
name of conformity.
Similarly, they can implement the provision allowing them to ignore
most changes in households' deductions between certification periods
without waiting for USDA to promulgate new regulations. They would, of
course, still have to comply with existing USDA rules on when changes
in earned income must be reflected in recalculated benefits. And,
states would have to adjust benefits when a household elects to report
that they have moved. The new rules, however, give states many options
for minimizing the number of changes that require action. Freezing
households' deductions is unlikely to cause significant hardship since
the household can always reapply before the end of its certification
period if a major rent increase, large new child care costs, or other
deductible expenses render the household's current allotment
inadequate.
Despite Congress's best efforts over the years, child support
payments are not always as regular as they ought to be. This has caused
states concern about when they should anticipate that a household will
make or receive a payment. We examined this question closely.
Fortunately, a large part of the answer can be found in longstanding
USDA regulations on anticipating income. Whether a state is determining
gross income or net income, these regulations provide that it may only
count amounts reasonably certain to be received during the month in
question. Last year, USDA amplified these regulations with some
extremely helpful guidance that also gave states new options for
simplifying the treatment of child support payments that a household
receives.
This legislation builds upon that effort by extending the
simplification to replace the deduction for child support payments made
with an optional income exclusion. States now can exclude any legally
obligated child support payments made by a household completely from
income calculations. Thus, these potentially volatile payments need no
longer be considered when applying the gross income eligibility limit.
We did not mandate this change to avoid forcing states to undertake
costly reprogramming of their computers purely to implement this
provision.
In addition, the legislation directs USDA to establish procedures
that permit states to rely on information from the state child support
enforcement agencies in calculating households' incomes. We expect USDA
will allow states great flexibility to rely on older information that
might otherwise be appropriate. States' child support enforcement
agencies often have computers that do not mesh effectively with the
systems states rely upon to calculate food stamps. The value of
simplification in this area seems far more important than that of
requiring the household to verify the most current possible
information. Of course, a household that chooses to submit information
about recent changes in its child support obligations or payments
should receive whatever food stamps those changes justify.
Finally, the legislation includes an experimental approach to
providing food stamps to persons residing in certain kinds of
institutions. Where a drug or alcohol rehabilitation center or similar
facility would have served as the households' authorized representative
anyway, the legislation allows states to provide a food stamp benefit
directly to the home. As long as the claimant lived in the institution,
the benefit would be calculated under a standardized formula that would
not require the institution to gather a great deal of detail about the
circumstances of each resident.

These procedures only apply in facilities that qualify as
institutions under USDA's rules. Those regulations correctly limit the
definition of an institution to a place that provides the majority of
meals to its residents over the course of a month. The new group home
procedures would not apply to a facility that does not regularly
provide most of each resident's meals.
Also, we do not intend it to limit in any way the ability of victims
of domestic violence or

[[Page H2045]]

others that are capable of managing their own benefits to participate
under regular food stamp rules. We certainly do not want to compound
the tragedy of domestic violence by stripping a woman of her food
stamps.
This experiment should be a great convenience to centers as well as
state agencies. In return for that convenience, we expect USDA and the
states will require participating centers to have reliable systems for
passing along notices to households and providing forwarding addresses
to the state agency when a household moves. Residents leaving these
centers in mid-month should not have to try to get by without adequate
food assistance.
Upon investigating a few of the Senate bill's simplification
proposals, we were delighted to find that USDA's regulations already
provide states the option to simplify the program. For example, I was
pleased to learn that the current rules allow states to simplify the
conversion of weekly and biweekly amounts of earned income deduction in
the food stamp program if they have done so in TANF. Under this
authority, Maryland multiplies weekly paychecks by four to calculate
monthly income in both TANF and food stamps. Thus, we saw no need to
adopt a Senate provision in this area that would have reduced the
earned income deduction.
Similarly, the Senate bill included a complicated provision that
would have converted the food stamp recertification process into a
redetermination system. Although this long has been a problem in the
food stamp program, we discovered that recent changes USDA has made in
its regulations address the major concerns. No one disputes the
principle that a household should be able to receive food stamps
continuously as long as it remains eligible. Also, no one intends that
certification periods be so rigid as to create unnecessary burdens on
either state agencies or households. On the other hand, we do believe
it is important that states periodically confirm that a family in the
food stamp program remains eligible just as they would for a family in
any other on-going public benefit program.
Recent USDA regulations give states broad flexibility to extend
certification periods without going through recertification processes.
They also allow states to undertake reviews in the middle of an
unexpired certification period by sending a request for contact where
the state knows an important change has occurred but does not have
enough information to act on that particular change. In both instances,
the key is eligibility rather than an arbitrary review schedule set
months in advance. The transitional food stamp provisions in both USDA
regulations and this legislation similarly avoid entrapment in rigid
certification periods.

The only question the Senate provision raised, then, was one of
procedure. We preferred to maintain the one we had. Switching to a
redetermination model would require states to undertake a costly
reprogramming of their computers. It also could have allowed some
inattentive eligibility workers to ignore review schedules and send
food stamps to indisputably ineligible for many months.
Not only did we seek to simplify by changing the program, we also
sought to promote innovative approaches to simplification within the
existing structure of the program. Each year, USDA will have a
significant pool of money it can use to fund creative uses of the
discretion states already have to ease access for low-income working
families and others in need. For example, my state has pioneered
centralized change reporting centers that ensure that someone is always
available to receive a household's report of an increase or decrease in
its monthly wages. I hope that USDA will use some of this money to fund
efforts to create joint applications for food stamps, Medicaid, and
other work supports for households that do not want to receive welfare.
In this regard, USDA should not hesitate to fund a promising idea that
would improve the food stamp program just because its benefits might
spill over into other areas.
Beyond these simplification provisions, we have made numerous other
improvements in nutrition programs. We have streamlined the employment
and training program to allow states easier access to these funds. This
will give states flexibility to serve other groups of people that
cannot receive employment and training services from other programs.
For example, some households in which the parents are ineligible based
on their immigration status might nonetheless be appropriate for food
stamp employment and training assistance if some children in the
household are getting food stamps. These children will benefit, and
their need for food assistance will decline, if their parents can
increase their earnings.
Because this fund is limited, however, we have retained the current
prohibition on spending these funds in ways that effectively supplant
funding available through the TANF block grant. The Food Stamp
Employment and Training Program should be the funder of last resort for
these programs.
We remain committed, however, to serving people subject to the three-
month time limit. Unlike other applicants and recipients, these
individuals cannot receive the food assistance they need unless they
have the opportunity to work it off. The legislation requires USDA to
give particular attention to this population when allocating the money
among states. States that have elected to serve large numbers of
unemployed childless adults should continue to have the resources to do
so.
This change will expand states' ability to provide employment and
training services that do not meet the definition of a work activity in
the part of the law creating the 3-month time limit. These could
include routine unsupervised job search activities and training
programs lasting less than twenty hours per week. Months spent in these
activities usually will not count as months of work for purposes of the
3-month time limit, but they may nonetheless help the individuals in
question find private-sector employment. States already have broad
authority to decide how to coordinate these various employment-related
requirements under the act. This change will give them the funding
flexibility to take advantage of that authority.
The conference report does not include Senate-passed provisions
modifying the 3-month time limit. A major factor in this decision was
our examination of the commonsense regulations USDA promulgated last
year. We may want to revisit this provision of the law at some point in
the future, but USDA reduced the urgency of that with the series of
pragmatic and fair-minded choices it made.
The final bill does, however, eliminate the current $25 cap on the
amount states may reimburse E&T participants for expenses other than
dependent care. This cap was unreasonably limiting states' flexibility
in designing their own programs. We expect USDA will continue its
longstanding policy of giving states broad flexibility in how they
provide these funds to participants. With states paying half of the
cost, we have no need to impose federal paperwork burdens on States and
households.
My own state of Texas was one of the first to issue food stamp
benefits to households through electronic benefit transfer, or EBT,
rather than paper coupons. The first generation of EBT contracts have
begun to expire, and we are close to having a nationwide system of
providing food stamp benefits via EBT. It therefore seems appropriate
to take stock of the current system and some of the challenges that it
present both to states and clients.
This legislation requires USDA to issue a report on the current
status of EBT. I am particularly interested in what information the
Department can share on ensuring that claimants have full access to EBT
systems and on ensuring that those systems fully meet their obligation
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act. It is not acceptable to have eligible, needy
individuals effectively denied food stamps because they lack the
physical or mental skills necessary to use the equipment in a safe and
reliable manner.
The final bill does not include a Senate-passed provision to ensure
that no households' EBT benefits are taken ``off-line'' or made
inaccessible unless the household has left them idle for at least 6
months. I was comfortable with this decision because the Department has
informed us that it is already planning to implement this policy via
regulation.
I am pleased that this legislation will restore eligibility to legal
immigrants. We were very fortunate to work with the administration, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and many
other members of Congress on this proposal. Legal immigrants'
eligibility for food stamps was severely restricted in 1996, causing
significant harm to these families. Many of these families contain poor
citizen children who have left the food stamp program since the passage
of the welfare law despite remaining eligible. We assume that this is
because their parents have been confused about who in their family is
eligible.

This bill would restore eligibility to qualified low-income legal
immigrant children regardless of their entry date into the United
States. In addition, qualified legal immigrant adults who have lived in
the United States for 5 or more years with that status also are
eligible. We decided to make these adults subject to sponsor deeming
because the rules USDA implemented last year strike us as a sensible,
equitable approach to balancing our desire not to provide food stamps
to families that are being supported by their sponsors with the
program's purpose of getting food to those in need. We do not expect
USDA to make any changes in this area. In particular, these families
should not be subjected to any additional paperwork requirements that
may prove difficult to meet if the sponsor is uncooperative.
This restoration would bring food stamp policy for adults into
conformity with the rules already in force in Medicaid and TANF. In
each of the three programs, an adult becomes eligible for benefits 5
years after obtaining a qualified status. It does not matter if the
immigrant

[[Page H2046]]

at one time was granted one qualified status, such as asylum, and now
has another, such as legal permanent residency. The 5 years begin to
run from the time the immigrant first obtained qualified status. This
conformity should make these rules much simpler for states to
administer and for immigrants to understand. Finally, the legislation
would allow legal immigrants receiving benefits under specified
disability-based programs to qualify for food stamps.
When we received cost estimates of this package from CBO and the
administration on this proposal, neither projected any offsetting
collections from sponsors as a result of immigrants receiving food
stamps. This seems reasonable since so many low-income immigrants live
with their sponsors. Over the years, Congress has consistently rejected
proposals to require food stamp recipients to repay properly issued
food stamp benefits. The OMB and CBO scores show that those agencies
recognize that sponsor liability has never been intended as an end-run
around that principle. No sponsor should incur a debt for food stamps
that he or she receives along with the sponsored immigrants. The impact
of this restoration would be compromised severely if eligible
immigrants feared that their family members would be sent a bill as a
result a their participation in the food stamp program.
This scoring guided our thinking in how to draft the proposals.
Certainly, we do not intend to encourage affluent sponsors to abdicate
their responsibilities. But we also do not intend for low-income
sponsors who are a part of the food stamp household or family unit to
incur a liability as a result of their family's or household member's
participating in the food stamp program. How could an aunt who is also
her nephew's sponsor elect to enroll that child in food stamps if it
would simply result in the aunt receiving a bill for the value of those
food stamps?
The bill also includes an important benefit improvement for all low-
income households. The food stamp standard deduction, which operates
like the standard deduction in the Tax Code, has been improved. First,
the standard deduction will now be scaled to household size. Instead of
a flat $134 deduction for all households, households will receive a
deduction equal to 8.31 percent of that year's federal poverty
guidelines. States must implement this provision by October 1, 2002. We
understand that this effective date will represent a challenge for many
states because it will require reprogramming their computer systems
within a short period of time. We encourage USDA to work with states to
provide some leeway for those states that are working diligently
towards implementation but who may not be able to achieve the October 1
deadline. Of course, current law protect all states from quality
control errors as a result of this provision for 6 months after the
effective date.
One of the most profound reforms to the food stamp program included
in the bill is the new direction for the quality control system. There
has been longstanding agreement amongst states, antihunger groups, and
the administration that the quality control system needs to be
reformed. The reforms included in this bill will ease federal-state
relations and allow state administrators to adopt a balanced approach
to program administration. Payment accuracy will remain essential, but
not to the exclusion of the program's basic goals. While continuing the
program's commitment to payment accuracy, the new formula will restrict
sanctions to the worst offenders, as recommended by the National
Academy of Science's review of the quality control system.
The new system eliminates the feature of current law that puts about
half of the states in sanction each year. This will allow USDA to focus
its energies on states with persistent payment accuracy problems. Under
the new system, the threshold for sanction is increased to exclude
states with error rates very near the national average from fiscal
penalties. In addition, states whose measured error rate may exceed the
threshold only due to statistical uncertainty are exempt from sanction.
Finally, no action is taken against states in the first year they
exceed the threshold; these states are given an opportunity to improve
their performance before they are subject to a penalty.
If USDA determines with statistical confidence that a state has
triggered a sanction by exceeding the threshold in a second consecutive
year, USDA has three choices.
First, it can require the state to reinvest up to 50 percent of the
sanction to improve administration of the program. The legislation is
deliberately open-ended about what kinds of program improvements can be
the goals of reinvestment efforts. We believe each state is likely to
be the best judge of what improvements it needs. Current USDA policy
sensibly allows reinvestments seeking to improve program access as well
as those that seek to improve payment accuracy.
Second, USDA can designate up to 50 percent of state's potential
liability to be held at risk. The state must pay moneys held at risk
from the previous year if the state's error again is subject to
sanction. If the state is not subject to sanction in the following
year, the amount held at risk is automatically waived.
Thus, the state would not pay any sanctions unless it exceeded the
threshold for sanctions for the third consecutive year, determined
again in a statistically reliable manner. USDA cannot collect sanctions
during the year in which they are applied.
Finally, USDA can waive any portion of the sanction amount. Any
sanctions that are not reinvested or held at risk must be waived. USDA
should consider the causes of the state agency's problems and whether
the state's error rate is falling along with other relevant factors
when determining how much to waive of a state's sanction to waive.
Where the state is clearly on the road to correcting its problem, even
a complete waiver may make sense.
The final bill does not include an important feature of the Senate-
passed bill, adjustments to sanctions for states doing a particularly
good job of serving low-wage working families or immigrant households.
Since 1998, USDA has adjusted the sanction liabilities of states to
eliminate the impact of high or rising proportions of working poor
households or low-income immigrants. Last year, the Department wrote to
the states to assure them that it would continue to make these
adjustments. USDA informs us that it has done so again with regard to
states' error rates in fiscal year 2001. USDA reiterated to us its
pledge to continue making these adjustments so that no state is thrown
into sanction, or has its sanction increased, because it is serving a
high or rising proportion of immigrants or earners. With USDA taking
this action through its administrative authority, we saw no need to
included in adjustments in the statutory changes to the system.
I must confess to some nervousness about the timetable for
implementing this new system. On the one hand, the current system would
remain in place for the current fiscal year. I hope USDA will apply its
broad discretion to waive the sanctions of states estimated to exceed
the sanction threshold by small or statistically unreliable margins as
these states would not be sanctioned under the new system.
More significantly, under this legislation no state would be subject
to automatic sanctions in fiscal year 2003, no matter how seriously and
chronically it had failed to meet our payment accuracy goals. By
extension, fiscal year 2004 could count as no more than a second year
for states, even those with serious problems in 2002 and before. I fear
this one-time relaxation in QC sanctions could lead to an unacceptable
increase in the national payment error rate. None of us have any desire
to yield back any of the hard-won gains of recent years.
Neither our bill nor the Senate's provided for gaps of this nature.
We adopted this timetable solely at the suggestion of the Department.
We trust that the Department will use its broad authority to sanction
ineffective or inefficient program administration in the case of any
state whose payment accuracy performance during this transition is
seriously flawed. The Department must bear the responsibility of
ensuring that this lengthy transition that it has requested does not
undermine the program's integrity.

The legislation that gives USDA new authority to penalize those
states that appeal their quality control error rate findings and that
lose their appeal. This is provided to ensure that USDA is not barraged
with patently frivolous appeals. Since states cannot be made fully
whole for reinvested moneys that ultimately are found not to be owning,
a state with a good faith dispute over a sanction could reasonably wait
to begin reinvestment until its appeal is resolved. USDA should not
deny these states the opportunity to reinvest any sanctions ultimately
found due.
The bill also replaces the current system of enhanced funding for
states with extremely low error rates with a system of high performance
bonuses. The criteria upon which USDA awards these bonuses should
reflect a balanced picture of the goals of state administration of the
program. Payment accuracy is an important part of that system, but so
are complying with the law's application processing deadlines and its
requirements to make food assistance accessible to those in need.
Measures focusing on administrative service, such as timeliness and
denying only those applicant households that are ineligible, should be
a significant portion of the bonus package. By requiring USDA to
consult with states in developing its system of bonus payments, we by
no means intend to suggest that USDA may exclude academics, claimants'
advocates, and others from its consultations on this issue.
In conclusion, with this legislation, Congress will improve benefits
for many of our nation's neediest families and accomplish historic
simplification of the food stamp program, better enabling states to
serve working families with this critical work support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2047]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, no farm bill is perfect, but this conference
report deserves our support. I will support it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of the groups we have
heard from just today in support of the bill.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association
South East Dairy Farmers Association
National Milk Producers Federation
The Alliance of Western Milk Producers
National Pork Producers Council
United Egg Producers
Alliance for Agricultural Conservation
National Association of Wheat Growers
Coalition for Food Aid
Food Research and Action Center
National Farmers Union
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
National Cotton Council
Renewable Fuels Association
National Corn Growers Association
Land O'Lakes
American Farm Bureau Federation
USA Rice Federation
National Grain Sorghum Producers
American Sheep Industry Association
Dairy Farmers of America
American Beekeeping Federation
U.S. Apple Association
American Sugar Alliance
American Sugarbeet Growers Association
U.S. Beet Sugar Association
American Sugarcane League
Florida Sugarcane League
Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers Inc.
Hawaii Sugar Farmers
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
Illiinois Corn Growers Association
National Barley Growers Association
National Sunflower Association
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council
U.S. Canola Association
American Soybean Association
US Rice Producers Association
CoBank
Independent Community Bankers of America
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of State Foresters
Ducks Unlimited
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Ducks Unlimited
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
National Rifle Association
Pheasants Forever
Quail Unlimited
The Wildlife Society
Wildlife Management Institute

Mr. Speaker, I heard concerns about how our trading partners to the
south, our trading partners to the north, our trading partners in
Europe may be looking at this. Mr. Speaker, this is a farm bill for
rural America. This is not for rural Mexico, this is not for rural
Canada, this is not for rural Europe.
I would also call to the attention of my colleagues, in the motion to
recommit it mentions that parts of the money would go to conservation
programs, parts of money would go to nutrition programs, parts of the
money would go to rural development programs, parts of the money would
go to energy programs. So for my conservative colleagues that think
that this spends too much money, it does not change the spending; it
simply puts it somewhere else.
Also, it may be great language for a recommit motion, but I would
encourage my friends to read the conservation title, the nutrition
title, the rural development title and the energy title. Those all have
extensive programs. The decision of where that would go would take, I
feel, a great deal of time, having spent the last 2 months working
through a conference.
I would also say you do not create a conference report of this
magnitude in a vacuum. Anytime you make a change in one area, you make
substantive change somewhere else. It may be easy on the floor to say
well, we could just do this and then move on.
That is simply not possible. It would take a tremendous amount of
time to go back in and look at the programs that are in place that are
based upon the conference report as was reported. It would take
extensive amounts of time to go back in and try to rebalance those. We
would have to look at all of the conservation payment limitations that
are in fact in place. We would have to look at the payment limitations
in other areas, such as the farmland protection areas. All this would
take considerable time.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have the time. We are out of time. And let
there be no doubt about it, if the motion to recommit passes, this
conference report is dead. We will be back to writing a new program
under a new budget score. And if we think it was difficult to write
this over 2\1/2\ years, I cannot even imagine the difficulty in writing
a new one.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intensity of all of the Members who
have participated today. This is a day that I have looked forward to
for 2\1/2\ years.
I include the following:
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2002.
Hon. Larry Combest,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We have reviewed the Senate amendment to
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, which is now before
the Conference Committee. Under rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has jurisdiction over ``pollution of navigable
waters.'' Certain provisions of the Senate Amendment to H.R.
2646 fall within that jurisdiction, including:
Section 203--This section amends section 1243 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 to authorize funding for, among other
things, meeting the purpose of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Section 213--This section amends section 1240 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 to include as a purpose, assisting
livestock producers in complying with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
Section 262--This section establishes a Klamath Basin
Interagency Task Force that includes the Environmental
Protection Agency, and includes as a duty, using existing
Federal programs in the Klamath Basin for ``improvement of
water quality.'' Existing federal programs for the
improvement of water quality in the Klamath basin are
programs under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of this legislation
and the need to conclude the conference expeditiously. While
we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the provisions
outlined above, I have not asked that the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee be named Conferees. This is
conditional on our mutual understanding that we are not
waiving any jurisdiction over these or any similar provisions
and that you work with us to resolve any concerns we may have
about them.
I would also appreciate it if you would have this letter
and your response inserted into the Record when the
Conference Report on the legislation is considered on the
Floor.
I look forward to working with you on this matter and thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, which is now before
the Conference Committee. I look forward to working with you
on items within your jurisdiction in order to complete this
important legislation in an expeditious manner.
Recognizing your Committee's jurisdiction under House Rule
X, with respect to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I
appreciate your cooperation in not seeking the appointment of
conferees. I agree that your decision to forego the
appointment to the Conference Committee will not prejudice
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
matters and I look forward to working with you to resolve the
issues at hand.
I greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter and I
will insert a copy of our exchange of letters in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the Conference
Report.
Sincerely,
Larry Combest,
Chairman.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report for the farm bill. Overall, I think this is a good bill and I
thank the conferees for their hard work.
This bill makes significant improvements to our current farm policy,
which has not worked as promised to help American farmers. This bill
will restore counter-cyclical payments to provide support to farmers
when market prices for a commodity drop below a target price, restoring
the safety net that was cut with the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. In
addition, the bill

[[Page H2048]]

reauthorizes the existing programs that provides fixed annual payments
and marketing loans to commodity producers and continues the planting
flexibility that came out of the Freedom to Farm Act.
The bill also provides a significant increase in funding for
conservation programs. such as the Conservation Reserve Program and the
Wetlands Reserve Program. These programs are very important to the
farmers in the Congressional District I represent, and I am glad to see
that there will be adequate funding for the expansion of these key
programs.
I am also pleased that the conference report includes $405 million
for energy-related programs, including the Commodity Credit Corporation
bio-energy program. This program pays producers who purchase
commodities for the purpose of producing biodiesel and fuel-grade
ethanol. Illinois is the largest producer of ethanol, and the
continuation of this program is good news for our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, overall I believe that this is good legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to help America's
farmers.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to oppose the
conference report before us today. I agree that there are some
excellent provisions. I support the increase in spending for
conservation, as well as the country-of-origin labeling and research
subsidies. I also support the restoration of food stamps for legal
immigrants, and indeed, have voted numerous times during my tenure to
support restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants.
But I cannot in good conscience vote for this bloated bill. What we
hope will come out of a conference is a well-reasoned and reasonable
compromise. In reality, the end result is frequently an agreement to
split the difference. Today, we are presented with an even less
appealing compromise--an agreement that is completely out of proportion
to the requests of either the House or Senate bill. This is hugely
irresponsible in a time of economic duress and budget shortfalls.
It is the sins of omissions that are the downfall of this bill. I am
sorely disappointed to see that the conferees chose to ignore the will
of the House and of the Senate and not implement the recommended
subsidy payment limitations. The result would cost this country
billions of dollars while benefiting the largest corporate farms and
big agro-business. This does not help the small farmer. In fact, these
huge handouts would aid corporate farms in buying out the small farmers
the bill purports to protect.
And there are other glaring omissions. Gone are the provisions that
would improve animal welfare. Many important conservation measures have
been gutted. As a percentage of the total, the conservation portion is
actually less than it was in the 1990 Farm Bill.
For these reasons, I oppose this conference report. The bill
represents a missed opportunity and it is a failure.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 2646. I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
House Committee on Agriculture and the Chairman and Ranking Member from
the other body for their hard work in getting this bill through
conference.
The Committee on International Relations also has a substantial
interest in H.R. 2646, as the Committee has jurisdiction on trade and
export programs as well as international food aid, all of which we
addressed in Committee consideration of Title III.
The conference report strikes an appropriate balance between
international food aid programs and trade promotion. I am pleased to
note that the report also preserves the reform's to the Food for Peace
authorities in substantially the same form as the Committees
recommendation and contains further reforms for the Food for Progress
suggested by the Senate.
By strengthening our international food aid programs, this bill helps
to ensure that tens of thousands of hungry men, women and children do
not starve to death simply because they were born in a country with
chronic food shortages, civil war or poor governance.
While U.S. food aid programs authorized by the bill before us today
cannot end world hunger, they can play a crucial role in helping our
nation meet its moral obligation to alleviate human suffering in places
like sub-saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia while at the
same time help to support thousands of American farm families. As we
have seen, suffering and despair can often be manipulated and turned
into a breeding ground for evil and hate.
I am also very pleased that we have been able to include two new but
very important provisions. This bill will permanently authorize the
Global Food for Education Initiative launched by Ambassador George
McGovern and former Senator Bob Dole, and provides $100 million in
bridge funding for the pilot program while additional funding is being
identified.
The second provision is the Farmers for Africa and the Caribbean
initiative, first introduced by Congresswoman Eva Clayton as H.R. 1894
which will help bring American farming expertise to the countries that
most need if through farmer to farmer type programs.
This legislation will also increase American agricultural exports,
which support thousands of farm families around our nation. Considering
that agricultural exports account for nearly one fourth of all farm
income, it is vital that we continue to support or trade promotion
programs.
Mr. Speaker, these programs epitomize the true American spirit and
the values we hold dear. Through these programs, we are able to take
the bounty of our lands and share it with the needy and the hungry
around the world. At the same time, we are able to help sustain the
family farms and help producers and growers expand their markets. It is
no wonder that these programs enjoy such widespread support.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the tremendous work
by the staff on the Committee on International Relations on this
legislation. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Nisha Desai
and Paul Oostburg, without whom essential issues relating to U.S.
international food aid would have been far less robust than the bill
before the floor today. People around the world owe them their thanks.
I hope that all of my colleagues will support the conference report.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with much disappointment that
the animal protection provisions once included in the Farm Bill were
stripped out during conference committee.
As a long-time champion of animal rights, I have been a cosponsor of
The Downed Animal Protection Act, The Bear Protection Act, the ban on
cockfighting, and similar pieces of legislation since my early days in
Congress. And with each year that they are introduced and re-
introduced, the House comes closer and closer to passing them, but yet
we always fall short. The Farm Bill was the best vehicle in recent
memory for finally having these protections signed into law. But, alas,
we find ourselves back at square one.
Despite this missed opportunity, I ultimately decided to support the
Farm Bill because it contains several positive provisions that will
greatly benefit many of my constituents. The Nutritional Title within
the bill is one of the most important pieces of food stamp legislation
in 25 years. It invests almost $7 billion over ten years in crucial
improvements in the program, including a restoration of benefits to all
documented immigrant children and to immigrant adults who have resided
in the country for five years. The bill also provides families with
transitional food stamps as they leave welfare and move into jobs,
making the difficult transition much more stable.
In addition, the Farm Bill includes $275 million for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program which will provide much-needed resources to
protect and preserve the New York City Watershed. The bill also
contains provisions that will be beneficial for fruit and vegetable
growers and dairy farmers in Upstate New York.
While I am pleased that the Farm Bill made vital improvements in the
Food Stamp Program and invested in important agriculture initiatives, I
do not approve of the conferee's decision to strip out the animal
rights protections. It is my sincere hope that Congress will quickly
revisit and implement these crucial protections that have been put off
for far too long.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I've traveled across Northeast Iowa and
listened to members of the agricultural community over the last few
years, the shape and the content of the new farm bill has been the
centerpiece of our discussions. I've heard from many farmers about the
challenges they face, their preferences for this legislation and their
hopes for a quick resolution.
I voted for the original Freedom to Farm legislation in 1996. Freedom
to Farm was working until the United States fell prey to a trade war, a
currency collapse and substantially subsidized overproduction in South
America. Accordingly, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I
constructed the fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 budgets to set
aside necessary funding. I did this so Congress could write a new farm
program as soon as possible to meet these challenges farmers have faced
since the implementation of Freedom to Farm.
As Chairman of the Budget committee, I am pleased that the conference
agreement fits within the amounts assumed for reauthorization of a farm
bill within the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. Our 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 or
reauthorization of a farm bill. It set aside the rest in a reserve fund
that can only be used for reauthorization of the farm bill.
Our budget resolution also allocated $7.35 billion in fiscal year
2002 and $73.5 billion

[[Page H2049]]

over the period of fiscal years 2002 to 2011. According to the
Congressional Budget Act, bills may not exceed the appropriate levels
in the budget resolution. This conference agreement meets this
standard. Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm, and their staffs
have worked hard to ensure that this bill complies within the Budget
Committee guidelines and I recommend them for this.
Farmers needed and deserved a farm bill last year to adequately
prepare for 2002 crops. I believe allowing this debate to go so long
was irresponsible and unsympathetic to the challenges Iowa's farmers
face each crop year.
I am extremely disappointed that the final conference agreement
failed to include a ban on packer ownership of livestock. Because I
realized how critical it is for Iowa's livestock producers, I
introduced separate legislation on this issue in February. The leaders
of the conference committee promised to continue investigating packer
ownership of livestock and its effects on producers. I plan to remind
them of that promise and will pursue every avenue remaining to find a
solution.
My second major concern about the conference agreement is that it
fails to address payment limitations in a meaningful manner.

I fear the lack of these two provisions will drive more family
farmers in Iowa to experience the harmful effects of consolidation in
the marketplace.
I am also concerned about the new Conservation Security Program
included in the final bill. As a new, unproven entitlement program, it
potentially takes dollars away from conservation programs that have
proven successful in the past such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP). We will need to closely monitor the effects
of this initiative.
While the conference agreement is clearly far from perfect, I believe
there are numerous strengths that must be considered as well.
The overall package placed before us today is an improvement over the
status quo when it comes to the support and safety net the Iowa farmers
have requested. That is precisely what I provided funding in my budget
to accomplish, and that is why I voted to approve the conference
report.
Overall, the new farm bill provides necessary stability for
agriculture by maintaining planting flexibility and implementing
counter-cyclical payments to help farmers deal with poor weather
conditions and unfavorable market conditions.
I am very pleased that his legislation includes much needed funds for
rural development including rural business investment, emergency
personnel and firefighters and high speed internet access for rural
areas.
This legislation also includes important provisions for the
improvement of trade for Iowa's farmers. The legislation includes
funding for the Market Assistance Program as well as the Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program. I am also pleased that this legislation
include a National Dairy Program intended to help all dairy producers
and significantly increases conservation programs, an 80 percent
increase over Freedom to Farm.
While a new farm program is indeed the centerpiece for a prosperous
future for Iowa's farmers, further action is still necessary to ensure
a strong and healthy agricultural economy. We must continue to press
for better trade agreements, including the approval of Trade Promotion
Authority for the President. Agriculture also deserves improved
treatment under the tax code. Opportunities also exist to benefit
farmers in pending energy legislation and regulatory relief.
While one size will never fit all when it comes to agricultural
legislation, the Farm Security Act provides the support and safety net
that Iowa farmers have asked for. As such, I vote to approve the Farm
Security Act.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant but real
opposition to the Conference Report for H.R. 2646, the Farm security
Act.
My opposition is reluctant because I do think Congress should enact a
new farm bill this year, to establish sound policies for agriculture
and to do such essential things as the extension and expansion of the
food stamps program and further the use of renewable sources of energy.
But my opposition is real because this conference report not only
falls short of the ideal--as does most legislation--but also fails the
fundamental tests of fairness and responsible public policy.
In 1996, Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act. I was not a Member
of Congress at that time, but I understand its basic purpose was to
allow more flexibility to farmers to plant different crops depending on
market demands. It was also supposed to reduce government involvement
in farming and save taxpayers money.
It seems clear to me that experience since 1996 has shown that the
legislation needed revision--but this bill goes far beyond a mere
revision. Instead, the principles of the 1996 legislation have been
abandoned, and now we are faced with a farm bill that increases
spending by more than $73 billion dollars.
The Commodity Title of this bill, which is supposed to provide
farmers with ``security,'' is seriously flawed. First off it provides
government payments to only a few commodity producers, those who
produce corn, rice, wheat, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, barley and oats.
And even for those producers it is structured so that it will provide
the most subsidies to the largest producers. As a result, the small
family farmers will get a little government assistance, while some of
the largest farms will receive the bulk of the subsidies. In my
opinion, this is not the way to really provide security for America's
farm families or to stabilize commodity prices in a sustainable way.
Instead, this title will encourage farmers to overproduce the favored
commodities because they are guaranteed a price for their crop, and
taxpayers will make up the difference between the set price and the
market price.
Equally important, the conference report's conservation provisions
are simply inadequate.
There are a number of farmer conservation programs that have had a
history of success that are authorized by the farm bill. The biggest
problem with these programs is that they have been underfunded and many
farmers who qualify and want to participate in these programs can't.
The House farm bill provided $1.6 billion for these programs and the
Senate bill provided $2.4 billion. But the Conference report only
provides $1.4 billion for these programs. This bill does not go far
enough with these conservation programs that farmers support.
So, while the conference report does have some provisions that
deserve support--from school lunch programs, to WIC--overall it does
not deserve enactment.
Farmers need some sort of security program to protect them from poor
weather conditions, rapid price fluctuations, disease, and other
perils. They need security, but this bill does not do that. This bill
will have Colorado taxpayers--including both farmers and consumers--pay
out more money to subside out of state farmers than Colorado farmers
and the environment will receive in benefits.
We need a better bill to provide security to all farmers.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture now stands at a
crossroads. The question that we as a society have to answer is do we
want an agricultural system that is comprised of very few, very large
corporate producers--probably owned by one of the largest supermarket
chains and probably overseas--or do we want a decentralized system of
family based agriculture that produces food in rural communities across
the nation.
Foe me, the answer is clear. We need to support and preserve family
based agriculture throughout the Nation in all commodities. Why do I
say this? Why should Americans care that their food is produced
overseas on large corporate farms? While overseas producers are not as
efficient as US farmers, they are in many cases lower cost producers
because the cost of land and labor are, to excuse the pun, dirt cheap.
And the health and safety standards and environmental standards are far
more lax than ours, if they exist at all. So, Americans may get food
that is produced more cheaply overseas. But is that the only
consideration that should dictate the shape of American agriculture. I
don't think so. For a host of reasons it is increasingly clear that
corporate controlled farming is bad for the Nation.
First, I consider the preservation of the family farm a question of
national security. Everyone in this room will agree that we are far too
dependent on foreign oil. With all the troubles today in the Middle
East we see how vulnerable our economy is to foreign upheavals over
which we have little or no control. In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait,
this nation went to war quickly in order to protect our oil supply from
the Middle East. How vulnerable will we be if we become dependent on
foreign nations for our food?
Secondly, small decentralized farms are important for our
environment. When farming is spread out it has less impact on the
environment. In addition, family farms help reduce the blight of
suburban sprawl that is gobbling up so much open space in this country.
Thirdly, family farming is an integral and critical part of our rural
economy. They support not only their own families, but also a host of
related businesses like feed stores, equipment dealers, and local
retailers. They also maintain the scenic landscape that is so important
for the tourist industry in Vermont and elsewhere.
Finally, consumers are ultimately the winners when food is produced
on family run farms across the country. As I mentioned earlier, one of
the reasons that American farmers can be undersold is that we have some
of the highest food safety standards in the world. While that makes our
food more expensive to produce, it also means that American consumers
can be more certain that the food they are buying is high quality and
safe for their families. And as for the cheaper cost of production
overseas, consumers are unlikely to

[[Page H2050]]

benefit. Consolidation in the retailing and processing industry means
that lower cost food from overseas is more likely to provide increased
profits for them rather than lower consumer prices.

Those are just some of the reasons that, in my view, we need to
promote a system of family based agriculture. But as you know that
trends are currently against those of us that support family farmers.
In 1950, there were 5,388,437 farms in the U.S. By 1997, that number
had fallen to 1,911,859. That's a loss of 3,476,578. Or to put it
another way, in just 47 years, almost two-thirds of the farms in the
U.S. had vanished.
But while farms were getting fewer, they were also getting bigger.
The average farm in 1050 was 216 acres. By 1997, the size of the
average farm had more than doubled to 487 acres.
Just as troubling and perhaps more troubling for farmers is that the
people who buy their product--namely the processors and retailers--have
become larger and larger to the point that they have far, far too much
control over the price that farmers get for their milk.
In 2000, the top five food retailers controlled 42% of retail sales
in the U.S. This represents a staggering fast consolidation because the
top five retailers in 1993 only controlled 20% of food sales and as
late as 1997 the top five only controlled 24% of food sales.
The same is true among dairy processors. As of 2000, the top four
dairy processors controlled 35% of the fluid milk market. That's over a
34% increase in only 2 years.
And regionally, control is even more concentrated. Although Suiza
entered the dairy processing industry in 1993, by 2000 it controlled
70% of fluid milk processing and distribution in 13 Northeastern
states.
This consolidation is not limited to dairy, it is happening in every
agricultural commodity. The top four beef packers control 81% of the
market. Among pork packers, the top four control 59%. The top three
corn exporters control 81% of their market. Those top three corn
exporters also are the top three soybean exporters and they control 65%
of that market.
In a business environment like this, family farmers are getting
squeezed harder and harder as fewer and fewer buyers control the
marketplace. It's true for dairy, it's true for apples, it's true for
commodities across the spectrum.
This imbalance in the marketplace and this consolidation in the among
producers is being accelerated by the increased amounts of foreign
trade in agricultural products.
In 2000, the U.S. was importing enough cheese and dairy ingredients
to replace some 10.6 billion pounds of domestic milk production. The
U.S. exported the equivalent of 4.3 billion pounds. That's a trade
deficit of 6.3 billion pounds of milk.
And this pattern is going to get worse as processors and retailers
look to cheaper sources of food to fatten their profit margins.
In fact, a 2001 report from the University of Missouri noted that if
there was completely free trade in dairy, the world milk price would
always be lower than the U.S. cost of production. This led the
researchers to conclude, and I quote, ``If the dairy lobby is
successful in opening up global trade through the World Trade
Organization (WTO), we will find most of the remaining 90,000 US dairy
farms exiting rapidly.'' What an absolute tragedy that would be.
Now if you agree with me that America needs family farmers; and if
you agree with me that we, at a minimum, need to protect small farmers
from the increasing power of the concentrated processing and retailing
sectors, what should we do?
What we need to do is make sure that we have agricultural policies
that protect, promote and empower family farmers in this country. That
means for a start that we do not put American farmers at the mercy of
world milk prices.
We also need a federal agricultural policy that doesn't focus its
help on large farms. Under the failed 1996 so-called ``Freedom to
Farm'' program, only 40% of farmers in the US received subsidies. 60%
did not. The top ten percent received 70% of the subsidies. Fifty
percent of farmers received only 2%. Companies like DuPont, Archers
Daniel Midland, Boise Cascade and others have received hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
I am therefore disappointed that the payment caps I voted to support
and that the Senate included in its version of the farm bill were not
included in the final bill. As the votes demonstrated, there is
majority support in both bodies of Congress for this provision.
However, even though the payment caps were excluded, as were other
positive proposals, this Farm Bill represents a major victory for
family dairy farmers in Vermont and across this country. When the
Northeast Dairy Compact expired last fall, family farmers in New
England were left at the mercy of the outrageously low $9.90 support
price. I am also pleased to say that the entire Vermont delegation
pulled out all the stops to extend and expand the Compact. But we were
opposed by the dairy processors, who were working with large producers
in the West, and Congresspeople from the Upper Midwest who, mistakenly
in my view, thought the Compact hurt their farmers.

Last October, I introduced an amendment on the floor of the House to
create a national dairy program that would provide family dairy farmers
across the country with benefits equal to what New England dairy
farmers received under the Compact. We were opposed by the top
Republican and the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, both of
whom are from Texas. Much to everyone's surprise, we received 194 votes
after just two weeks of organizing. Much of the credit for the strong
showing that this amendment received goes to colleagues from the
Midwest and the South who joined with myself and other Northeastern
members in support of this national plan. It is fair to say that
without the courage and leadership of those Midwestern and Southern
Members was critical to our success.
Vermont's Senators then took that concept into the Senate where a
version was included in the Senate bill. Now the House and Senate
conferees have completed working out the differences between the House
and Senate versions of the Farm Bill and the final version includes a
new national dairy program that will accomplish what we have been
fighting.
The new national program would provide virtually the same benefits as
did the Compact with the difference being that the money would come
from the Federal Government as opposed to the processors. Now I, as
much as anyone, want the processors to have to pay a fair price for
their product. But without the Compact, family dairy farmers in Vermont
and across this country need this safety net. My hope is that in years
to come we can shift the funding source back where it belongs, on the
processors so that farmers are getting their money from the market. But
it makes no sense to let thousands of family farmers go out of business
while we work to make that happen. This program will also help make
sure that farm subsidy payments are more evenly distributed across the
country. Right now, the vast majority of the money goes to the
Midwestern and Southern states who produce program crops.
Of course, that Federal Government has much more to do if we are to
save family farming in this country. In addition to making sure federal
ag policy benefits small farmers, we have to address the concentration
issue among processors and retailers by enforcing our current antitrust
laws and perhaps enacting new ones if current law doesn't offer enough
protections.
The road ahead for family agriculture is not going to be an easy one.
But farmers will not have to fight it alone. There are millions and
millions of Americans who do not live on farms or in rural communities
who understand the value--from a national security standpoint, from an
environmental standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from a consumer
standpoint--of decentralized family based agriculture in the country.
They will be your allies. At the same time, farmers have to realize
that the corporate, agribusiness interests are the opponents of family-
based agriculture. They need to be cut loose so that, for example when
they want outrageous free trade agreements that allow them to purchase
agricultural products overseas at a fraction of the U.S. price, family
farmers all over this country stand up and say no. It will be a tough
fight but together we can reshape American agriculture for the better.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we have done a tremendous job fixing our
system of social welfare, and the reforms have been a tremendous
success in my district and across the nation. We did the heavy lifting
in 1996 and we will reauthorize those reforms later this year.
I find it extremely troubling that our Nation's agricultural policies
seem to follow a philosophy completely opposite that of our social
policies: a hand out, not a hand up. At the same time we're preparing
to strengthen our social welfare reforms, we're completely repealing
any semblance of agricultural reform.
This Farm Bill will bring our total agricultural spending to $208
billion over 10 years. It not only perpetuates crop subsidy programs,
it virtually doubles them. It represents business-as-usual for our
nation's heavily-subsidized agriculture community.
Our Nation's agriculture policy is possibly the most disgraceful
aspect of the entire federal government. If I had my way, I would scrap
the wasteful, bureaucratic Department of Agriculture and all its
programs, and start from scratch! The Department has an astonishing
99,000 full-time employees. By comparison, the Department of Education
has just 5,000 employees.
We need to come to grips with the fact that our farms are growing too
many crops, which has led commodity prices to plummet. Yet, in the face
of such convincing evidence, we refuse to take any market-oriented
approach. Instead, we will be exacerbating the problem by providing
even more subsidies, thereby encouraging marginal farmers to continue
to

[[Page H2051]]

overproduce and send prices further downward. Why is agriculture immune
to basic economics? Because, I suspect, America has a romance with the
family farm. Farming represents all that is good and pure in America.
This motion is recommit will make two extremely modest improvements
to our farm policies. First, it will limit annual farm payments to
$275,000 for a married couple per year. Second, it will shift the money
saved by these limits to conservation programs.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this Farm Bill because it continues
our failed, wasteful, anti-competitive agriculture policies. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit and against the
underlying bill.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, for the last 68 days, 11 of my House
colleagues and I have worked to resolve differences with our Senate
counterparts and finish a farm bill.
The House Agriculture Committee began writing this bill more than two
years ago. We held 47 hearings in Washington and across the country,
and heard testimony from 368 producers and the organizations that
represent them. More than 2,500 farmers and ranchers participated in
the process of crafting the House bill, which was approved unanimously
by the Committee and was passed last October by the full House with
bipartisan support, on a vote of 291-120. This bill reflects a broad
effort to respond to the concerns and needs of agricultural producers,
rural citizens, and American consumers.
Why this effort to approve a farm bill? Because our farmers need it,
rural America deserves it, and our consumers demand it.
The American farmer is the most efficient producer of food and fiber
of anyone in the world. For an example of the benefits of agriculture
we enjoy in America, let's consider a loaf of bread. I purchased this
loaf of bread this morning at my neighborhood grocery store for $1.69.
Each bushel of wheat, for which the farmer receives about $2.50, yields
65 loaves of bread. That means the farmer receives about $.04 for each
loaf sold--when was the last time you purchased a loaf of bread for 4
cents, the amount actually going to producers? It's easy to see why
farmers grow increasingly frustrated by the widening gap between the
prices consumers pay and the commodity prices they receive.
There's no doubt that times are tough in farm country. The ag economy
continues to suffer the burden of low market prices and rising costs of
production, and producers, already squeezed by narrow profit margins,
pay the price.
Last month, I completed my 66-country tour and story was the same in
each town hall meeting from Alemena to Zurich. Record low prices and
poor weather conditions paint a bleak picture for farm families.
This week's headlines in Kansas read: ``High Input Costs, Lower
Livestock Income Cut Kansas Farm Income 28.6%''; ``Bankers Indicate the
Farm-related Businesses Continue to Struggle''; and ``Falling Prices
Mean Big Losses for Cattle Feeders.'' Average net farm income in Kansas
last year totaled less than $28,000 per farm. Total farm expenses
increased 7 percent and average farm debt climed to 34 percent of
assets, up 32 percent from the year before. In 2000, a farmers spent
$81 for every $100 worth of farm products sold. In 2001, those input
costs climbed to $87 for the same level of market returns.
Even more recently, the market price drops have been dramatic. The
breakeven price for the average cattle feeder on May 1 was about $70
cwt. On April 29, cattle prices were $62--down from $73 on March 1,
just two months earlier. That means that producers lost around $120 on
every animal they sold. Multiply that number for an individually-owned,
10,000 head feedyard in Ashland, KS, and that feeder has just lost $1.2
million. These are the stories I heard all across the First District of
Kansas.
Our farmers and rural communities need help to survive, and looking
at the farm economy over the past 20 years tells why. In 1970, a
combine cost $7,000; today it is $170,000. Tractors have increased
five-fold in price. Fuel was $.30 per gallon; today it's $1.30. The
amount of seed corn for planting that could be purchased for $25 in
1972, now costs $140.
Income, on the other hand, has gone the opposite direction of input
costs. In 1973, soybeans sold for $12 per bushel; yesterday, they were
at $4.28. In 1974, wheat hit $5 per bushel; yesterday, it was $2.45.
So it should not come as a surprise when farmers turn to us in
desperate times, or send sale bills like this one--with the note inside
from a farm wife--``This is the reason we need a decent farm bill! I
have a young man, with farming in his blood, eager to take over our
ground--Please make it possible for him to continue the family
tradition and earn a decent living from the farm to provide for this
family.''
There are many reasons we need a farm bill, and a farm bill is about
much more than just agriculture. It's about maintaining the safest,
most abundant, most affordable food supply our consumers expect and
deserve. It's about preserving the environment for future generations,
conserving natural resources and protecting the quality of our water
and air. It's about helping rural communities sustain their economies.
It's about ensuring adequate nutrition for all Americans, especially
our children.
But for Kansas, it's also about avoiding this headline: ``On the
Auction Block: Farmers getting out, putting land for sale in tough
economic times.'' This bill is worth $318 million to the Kansas economy
this year alone, to keep farmers on the land, shoppers on Main Street,
children in our schools.
If we don't act now, next year may be too late for some family farms.
The wheat crop is in the ground, just over a month from the beginning
of harvest, and planting is underway for other crops. Farmers need
details of a farm bill sooner, not later.
I urge you to support the farm bill and vote for the conference
report.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member carefully reviewed the
provisions in the conference report for H.R. 2646. Although it contains
numerous positive features, in many ways the conference report is
disappointing and unimaginative. This Member is also concerned that it
will lead to dramatic increases in production, lower farm prices, and
thereby will lead to an early exhaustion of the $73.5 billion increase
in funding called for over the next decade.
In making a judgment on the conference report, this Member considered
the following positive and negative features of the legislation.
Specifically, this Member is pleased that the conference report for
H.R. 2646 includes these positive aspects: Provides a counter-cyclical
approach which will establish a greater safety net for farmers and
should eliminate the need for annual emergency assistance. This
provision is an especially important and positive feature of this
legislation.
Retains the planting flexibility, a feature of the current farm
program which has been extremely popular with producers.
Although the bill is far from perfect, it does provide additional
income assurances for producers.
To the benefit of the sorghum producers of the Great Plains region,
the sorghum loan rate is raised to the level of corn.
Gives producers the option to update base acres and yields.
Increases funding for conservation programs by 80 percent. Included
in the increase are these positive provisions:
The Conservation Reserve Program acreage is increased from 36.4
million to 39.2 million.
The Wetlands Reserve Program acreage cap is increased to 2.275
million acres.
The Conservation Security Program is established which will provide
incentives to maintain and improve stewardship practices.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program receives an increase
from $200 million to $1.3 billion annually over the next six years.
This program is especially important help for livestock producers in a
national effort to protect our environment.
The program for the rehabilitation of aging small watershed
structures that have been constructed over the past 50 years is
provided $275 million in funding.
Funding for the Market Access Program is increased to $200 million
annually by 2006.
Funding for the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program is
increased from $27.5 million to $35 million per year.
An energy title is included and funding is provided to promote
ethanol and biodiesel.
Funding is provided for broadband service in rural areas and rural
local TV broadcast signal loan guarantees.
Funding is included for value-added agricultural market development
grants.
Funding is provided for the Rural Business Investment Program.
The Global Food for Education Initiative (McGovern-Dole) is continued
as a pilot program for FY2003.
Commercial airlines are required to carry baby chicks as ordinary
mail. While this might seem like a small item, it is very important to
a number of Americans, a part of the American farm heritage, and a
personal interest of this Member.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are also some very significant
deficiencies in this conference report. Among them are the following:
The conferees failed to address the concerns related to increased
concentration in the agriculture sector. There is a growing concern
which has been consistently expressed to me by constituents in recent
years that there is too much concentration of economic power and too
little competition on the input, production, and marketing sides of
agriculture. Unfortunately, the conference report dropped initiatives
designed to address these concerns.
The conferees allowed a disproportionate amount of the funding to go
to very large farm operations. There is no real reform of payment
limitations and large producers will continue to reap most of the
benefits. In the past 5 years, 10 percent of the producers received
two-thirds of the payments. This conference report

[[Page H2052]]

does little to change that situation. The incentives are in this
conference report to cause the big farm operations to get bigger to the
detriment of most Nebraska and American family farmers.
The conference report dropped the ban on packer ownership of
livestock which the Senate approved, a ban which is also overwhelmingly
supported by the great majority of Nebraska farmers and livestock
producers.
After balancing the beneficial aspects and deficiencies of this
legislation, the conference report for H.R. 2646, this Member has
decided to vote ``aye'' since the measure is an improvement over the
status quo.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Farm Bill Conference Report
represents a missed opportunity on many levels to finally redirect
agricultural policy to reflect today's realities and respond to
tomorrow's challenges. It represents a lost opportunity for taking care
of the environment. It is a lost opportunity to provide meaningful
assistance to the family farmer. It is a lost opportunity for farmers
in Oregon. Since the Farm Bill has so many direct and indirect impacts
on urban and rural economies, it also contains other opportunities too
numerous to list.
We could have easily done much more. Instead, the Conferees
repeatedly ignored the wishes of a majority of Senators and
Representatives. They have cloaked their actions in language of concern
about family farms and the environment. Yet they repeatedly struck
provisions that would have made a meaningful difference to both. A few
of the more egregious examples include ignoring Senate and House votes
to set reasonable limits on subsidies and provisions agreed to by both
the House and Senate to protect and enhance environmental clean up
payments to family farms by limiting payments to corporate livestock
producers. They dropped the Senate provision to limit overproduction on
sensitive lands. The 80 percent ``increase'' in conservation funding
claimed by supporters is misleading. Critical conservation programs are
cut by almost $3 billion from the Senate bill and national conservation
priorities are not addressed. The percentage of the farm bill devoted
to conservation is actually less than the 1996 Farm Bill.
This farm bill does not help the majority of farmers. Because
subsidies increase with the amount of crops produced, this bill
benefits primarily the largest agribusinesses. It has been estimated
that up to 73 percent of farm subsidies go to just 10 percent of farms,
most with annual incomes over $250,000. The conference report provides
little support to the majority of farm families, directing only 12
percent of the funding to the bottom 80 percent of farmers.
This Farm Bill is not good for Oregon. The imbalance of payments
maintained in this bill disadvantages states like Oregon, where we
don't grow as many commodity program-supported crops as other states.
Negotiators dropped key language to address one of the state's most
pressing environmental crises in the Klamath Basin. This was a lost
opportunity to redirect our farm policy and restore the natural
hydrology of the basin and to ensure that all federal agencies were
implementing their federal trust responsibility with Native Americans.
An overwhelming majority of the public supports redirecting our
agricultural funding to protecting the environment. In the end, despite
all the talk of the importance of conservation this Conference Report
will shrink conservation spending as a percentage of total farm
spending. As stated by the League of Conservation Voters, ``The version
of the Farm Bill . . . is a missed opportunity to support meaningful
conservation of America's farm lands.''
The Conference Report requires taxpayers to foot the bill for helping
corporate livestock producers clean up their waste, even though they
are already required to do so under the Clean Water Act. Currently, the
average payment for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is
only $9,000 and almost 200,000 applications are left without funding.
Instead of directing more funding to clean-up this backlog, the
conferees have opened the flood gates for mega producers to expand and
divert badly needed money away from small and average size family
farms.
While farmers in some states receive over 20 cents for each dollar of
product they generate, farmers in significant agricultural states like
Oregon, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California receive 3 cents or less.
Even though the number of farmland acres lost to sprawl doubled over
the last six years, negotiators cut $1.25 billion out of the only
federal program to help farmers curb sprawl. They also failed to adopt
Senate language that would have ensured conservation programs work in
every state and don't discriminate against farmers and ranchers in
areas with high land values, an important provision for my state.

It is a lost opportunity for improving animal welfare. Both the House
and the Senate passed important animal rights provisions.
Unfortunately, one by one, these provisions have been stripped in
conference, against the will of the majority of Members in the House
and the Senate. We had the chance to close loopholes that would have
limited the barbaric practice of cockfighting already illegal in 47
states and to stop the potential export of these birds across state
lines. Instead, the conferees ignored identical language in both the
House and Senate bills to impose stiffer penalties on those engaged in
illegal transport of these animals across state lines. They also
extended the effective date from 30 days to one year giving illegal
cockfighters an extra eleven months to continue their practice.
The final bill strikes provisions dealing with downed animals at
slaughter facilities. This issue bears on human health as well as
animal welfare. It is not healthy to have sick and traumatized animals
in the food chain. This conference report represents a lost opportunity
for improving food safety and protecting consumers.
This Farm Bill is not good for the taxpayers. Because of how it is
structured we won't know for years how expensive this bill will
ultimately be. Ironically, much of this cost goes into paying subsidies
that create surpluses and further depress crop prices. Stung by the
embarrassing revelation about who really benefits from farm payments,
House conferees attempted to amend the Freedom of Information Act to
hide part of the payment information instead of adopting reasonable
limits. Luckily, the Senate language prevailed and the information on
all subsidies, which will be more disturbing in the future, will be
available to the public.
The conferees turned a blind eye to the recent House vote which
passed 265-158 in favor of the Senate's $275,000 payment limit and
instead today's bill imposes a $360,000 payment limit that is largely
meaningless through its exemptions for large scale agribusiness such as
those who participate in rice and cotton certificate programs.
This Farm Bill is not good for tribal governments because the federal
government does not fulfill its trust responsibility in regards to
Native Americans. Language that passed in the Senate but was dropped by
the Conferees that would have authorized a Forest Service assistance
program for tribes seeking grants and provided informed and uniform
guidance in the Agency's widespread relations with tribes. This was a
missed opportunity to promote greater cooperation between the U.S.
Forest Service and forest conservation by tribal governments.
Finally, this farm Bill is not good for international trade. U.S.
farm subsidies send the wrong message to other regions such as Europe
and Japan that have more protectionist policies than we do. We cannot
freely compete in those markets and we don't have the moral authority
to object when we are subsidizing our farmers. Several provisions of
this Farm Bill will qualify as ``price-distorting'' practices and the
World Trade Organization can be expected to impose trade sanctions on
American farm products, and this would have a devastating effective on
U.S. exports.
Even though we were unsuccessful in the effort to change the Farm
Bill and capture many lost opportunities it is now clear that it is
past time to modernize our farm policies. I am hopeful that this flawed
bill and process nonetheless will help usher in a new era of
agricultural support and protection for this new century.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference
report on H.R. 2646, The Farm Security Act.
First, all Members should support H.R. 2646 because it represents a
return to truth in agricultural budgeting. In 1996, Congress approved
the Freedom to Farm Act, which attempted to eliminate farm payments. In
the following years, Congress was then forced to appropriate $33.5
billion dollars to farm support programs, in form of ``emergency''
payments that are not accounted for in the budget. Freedom to Farm
failed, as I and others who opposed the bill believed it would. Today,
we can correct that error.
Why do America's agricultural communities and economy need federal
assistance to remain healthy? At this time, there are two very
important reasons. First is the reality of heavy agricultural
subsidization around the world, including by the trading partners who
criticize our policies. Editorials and rhetoric notwithstanding, the
fact remains that America's agricultural producers are the most
technologically advanced and efficient in the world and have the
benefit of some of the most productive agricultural land in the world.
In a global agricultural economy truly free of subsidization, America's
farmers would not need subsidies to remain profitable. However, from
developed nations to emerging economies, agricultural production across
the world is incredible subsidized, resulting in a vicious cycle of
increasing subsidies and falling prices that cascades around the globe.
For example, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, is notorious
for its subsidization levels, which are generally much higher than

[[Page H2053]]

America's. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, OECD, the EU spent $21 billion more than the U.S. on farm
support, including emergency payments, in 1999. Frankly, for our
European friends to then issue press releases decrying H.R. 2646 is
hypocritical. The solution to the vicious cycle of global agricultural
subsidies is cooperative international negotiations, not unilateral
action by the U.S. Congress to drastically reduce our subsidies, which
would not likely be followed by our friends around the world.
Exports are the second economic arena where American farmers are hit
extremely hard by global financial conditions far beyond their control.
The strength of the dollar relative to other currencies, a result of
our international standing, resilient economy, and political stability,
makes imports from other countries--especially those with weak
currencies--relatively cheaper and our exports of all kinds relatively
more expensive. The increasing instability of Asian and Latin American
nations in the last five years has greatly exacerbated this situation,
leading the dollar to perceptions of risk by investors around the
world.
With the levels of efficiency and productivity inherent in American
agriculture, American farmers should be exporting more commodities and
livestock, but they are prevented by the global financial equivalent of
a flood. A strong dollar is a good thing, but a deluge of global dollar
demand can be very damaging to our exporters. Currently 25 percent of
Texas agriculture is exported, much of it shipped through the Port of
Houston in my district.
Although I represent an urban and suburban district, I am acutely
aware that agriculture is the second largest sector of the Texas
economy, ranking only behind energy and petrochemicals. Further shocks
to Texas agriculture will reverberate around the state and limit Texas'
potential for future growth. As I mentioned earlier, agricultural
exports are important for the Port of Houston, where they rank second
to energy and petrochemicals in terms of export value and tonnage.
America's agricultural economy is not isolated from the larger economy,
and I would urge other urban and suburban members to look into how
businesses in their own districts and regions would be adversely
affected by a crash in the farm economy--which might well happen if the
Farm Security Act fails to be enacted soon. Already agricultural banks
and lenders are reluctant to continue their relationships with hundreds
of thousands of American farmers without a clear statement of farm
policy from Congress.
In short, I support the conference report on H.R. 2646 because it
represents a return to truth in budgeting and will maintain the
viability of Texas farmers in a global economic environment
characterized by heavy agricultural subsidies around the world and an
extremely unfavorable export environment.
In closing, I would like to also mention two of the most
controversial issues in the 2002 Farm Bill debate: conservation and
payment limitations. Contrary to the rhetoric by opponents of farm
support, significant changes for the better have been made in both of
these areas. First, conservation spending in the conference report is
increased by 96 percent over current levels. The final level of $17.1
billion over 10 years represents a $1.3 billion increase over the
House-approved level and a significant movement by the House conferees
who had provided an 80 percent increase in their version of the Farm
Bill. Second, the maximum payment allowed by the conference report is
$190,000 less than the maximum allowed in the House version and
$100,000 less than current law. Currently a small number large
producers have been able to obtain over-sized payments beyond their
necessity, and I believe great progress is being made to remedy that
situation in this conference report.
For those who recognize the great important of the agricultural
economy and support increasing conservation programs like the
Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program, the
conference report represents a win-win situation. For those who want to
support farmers faced with higher levels of subsidization abroad and
monetary trade barriers without allowing certain individuals to game
the system, this conference report represents a win-win situation.
Unfortunately, those who do not recognize the importance of the
agricultural economy will probably never fail to find fault with
federal farm policy, even though their ultimate goal--a complete phase-
out--was tried in 1996 and miserably failed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report on
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act, and send this bill to the Senate and
to the President's desk.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this farm bill.
This is a good bill that meets the needs of America's farmers and the
American consumer. It certainly does not solve all the problems we have
in agriculture, but it sure does take a big step forward. A vote for
this farm bill is a vote for an affordable food policy. American
families can continue to enjoy the fact that their food is the most
affordable, safe, and abundant in the world.
I am particularly pleased with the new counter-cyclical program. Over
the last five years, we've seen record lows for farm outputs and record
highs for farm inputs. The counter-cyclical program will help farmers
bridge these problems and help secure high quality, low cost food for
our nation.
I also am pleased with the new emphasis that this legislation places
on value-added agriculture. More than anything else we can do, giving
greater incentives to family farmers to add value to their commodities
will create new opportunities to survive and remain profitable.
Producing ethanol, preserving the identity of commodities for niche
markets, expanding biodiesel production, and a whole range of new and
exciting farming ventures will reinvigorate the farming community and
create new employment opportunities on the farm and in the agricultural
industry as a whole.
In closing, let me thank Chairman Combest, the committee's ranking
member Mr. Stenholm and all the conferees for their good work. I urge
my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and adopt the farm bill
conference report.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support to the Farm Bill
Conference Report.
We owe Representatives Stenholm, Clayton, and Chairman Combest a
great deal for their leadership.
This bill provides $6.4 billion in nutrition programs.
Restores food stamp benefits for legal permanent residents, children,
and the disabled.
Includes provisions to simplify and streamline the Food Stamp Program
so needy families can get food with less red tape.
As opposed to what some have claimed, this bill is good for
California.
California is the largest agricultural State, but we mostly produce
fruits and vegetables, otherwise known as specialty corps.
The conference report provides for the largest investment in
conservation ever--$17.1 billion--fully 80 percent above the levels of
the Boehlert conservation amendment to the 1996 Farm Bill.
Let us also remember that farmers are workers too--equally deserving
of good wages and benefits.
They are the soul of our Nation. They feed us. They keep our Nation
alive.
Support farmers, the working poor, and our dairy and cattlement--
support the conference report on the farm bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Conference
Report on the long-awaited Farm Bill legislation. As a member of the
House Agriculture Committee, I want to thank my colleagues and those in
the other body for their tireless work to produce this much-needed
reauthorization of agriculture programs.
I am especially proud of the successful effort to create a National
Dairy Program to benefit producers across the country. I strongly
support providing much needed assistance to dairy farmers, and I am
pleased that farmers in all states will have a safety net to protect
their operations when prices are low, as they are right now. Dating
back to December of last year, the Dairy Program would have provided
approximately $3 million in payments to farmers in my home state of
Maine through the month of May. Since milk prices are expected to
remain low, this Dairy Program will help stem the tide of small family
farmers forced to sell their operations, just as the Dairy Compact once
did.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support in
extending the Senior Farmers Markets Program. This is a critical
program that benefits farmers and low-income seniors alike. Through
State coupon programs, farmers' markets will have a steady base of
customers, and America's elderly will have a reliable source of locally
grown fresh fruits and vegetables. It's a win-win situation, and I am
pleased that this Farm Bill will continue to fund these local efforts.
Finally, I would like to comment on the historic boost in
conservation spending contained in this bill. My district in Maine will
benefit greatly from the generous increases in the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, Farmland Protection Program, and Forest
Land Enhancement Program, to name a few. In a state that grows few
program crops, the emphasis on conservation program in the Farm Bill
will help my farmers to adopt good stewardship practices on their lands
and protect wildlife habitats and local watersheds.
Again, I want to thank the Conferees and all my colleagues on the
Agriculture Committee for their hard work in seeing this Farm Bill
through to completion. I look forward to the Senate's ratification of
the Conference Report and the President's signature on the bill. The
programs and assistance outlined in this legislation will help to
secure the farmers of America and ensure the health and growth of our
nation's food supplies.

[[Page H2054]]

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the Farm
Security Act of 2002 conference report. I want to commend Chairman
Combest and all of the conferees for their diligence and efforts on
behalf of our Nation's farmers.
This conference report is an example of what can be accomplished when
Congress decides to work towards a compromise to benefit all parties
involved. Not only will his conference report provide crop supports
through fixed and countercyclical payments, loan rates and target
prices; but it will also create yield updates available to producers
across the country; and a strong farm safety net
In addition, the conference report before us today will provide the
large increase in farm bill history for voluntary conservation measures
taken by farmers and landowners. In fact, an 80 percent increase in
budget support over current levels will be allocated for important
environmental and conservation programs.
More importantly, this conference report will provide needed
assistance to our onion farmers in Orange County, NY. These farmers
have experienced over 5 years of devastation crop and market losses,
due to rain, flood, hail, high winds and drought. The assistance to be
provided in this conference report will allow family farmers the
opportunity to continue to farm. I thank Speaker Hastert and Chairman
Combest for their efforts on behalf of our hard working Orange County
farmers.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this farmer and conservation
friendly farm bill.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in qualified support of the
conference report to H.R. 2646, The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act.
While California is the top agricultural state economy in the United
States, the bulk of this legislation's spending--$47.8 out of $73.5
billion--benefits only 9 percent of California's agriculture value.
Again, it will be those midwest states that only produce 20 percent of
the total value of U.S. agriculture that benefit most from federal farm
legislation.
The National Dairy Program is another unfortunate aspect of the bill
which threatens California's thriving dairy economy. While our dairy
herds continue to increase in size, production and efficiency, we will
be drawn into a national program designed to address region-specific
problems in other parts of the country, specifically the Northeast.
There is simply no reason to meddle in a healthy national market to the
benefit of only a few. $2 billion, which would have been better spent
on research or nutrition, will be distributed to regions that
contribute the least to our national economy.
It was with great diligence and constant effort that gains were
accomplished for the State of California. Specialty crop producers
received more assistance in this bill than any other farm legislation
passed by Congress to date.
Specialty crops have been especially successful at accessing foreign
markets. This bill supports these international efforts by providing
technical assistance to combat trade carriers, as well as increasing
funding for the Market Access Program. Country of origin labeling will
be mandatory for fruits, vegetables, fish, meat and peanuts in two
years. This is a consumer-right-to-know issue that brings us to parity
with labeling practices of other countries.
While California growers are as burdened as other producers in this
country by environmental regulations, traditional farm conservation
programs have historically been unresponsive to unique specialty crop
conservation issues and practices. Increased funding for EQUIP and the
Farmland Protection Program; a Water Conservation Program to address
ground water and irrigation issues; and the Conservation Security
Program all provide more conservation benefits to California than ever
before. Of particular interest to Central Valley farmers, this bill
requires a study on providing insurance to farmers suffering losses due
to regulatory droughts caused by government failure to deliver on CVPIA
contracts.
Our attempts to heighten awareness of the unique needs of specialty
crops, and to craft legislation that is responsive to the needs of
specialty crop producers, will continue. Progress should be marked by
commodity spending that is proportional to those products' market
share, productivity and efficiency. We should focus on achieving
benefits in farm policy that accrue to as many taxpayers as possible.
Although this farm bill makes strides towards helping California
farmers, many challenges beyond the farm bill remain if agriculture is
to remain viable in California. Specifically, water issues, regulatory
reform, and fair treatment of Central Valley agriculture interests will
continued to be the key battles for California agriculture.

All the farm-friendly agricultural policy has been, and will continue
to be undercut if we do not have a sufficient and reliable water
supply. Agricultural leaders must take every opportunity to place this
goal at the centerpiece of not just our agricultural policy, but of our
water policy, our budgetary policy, our infrastructure policy, our
economic development policy and our environmental policy. For example,
progress on CALFED must be predicated on progress on increased water
storage opportunities. Inclusion of environmental restoration projects
in state and federal budgets and in state water bonds must be
conditioned upon funding for water storage projects. Infrastructure
improvements in California must include improvements to our water
delivery systems, including increased water storage.
Since being elected to the Congress, I have pursued every opportunity
for regulatory reform--bringing common-sense into our regulatory
process. Examples abound of senseless waste of our government
resources, our natural resources, and of tremendous economic impact to
business in the name of environmental protection. Our government
regulators owe it to the public to avoid these consequences, where
possible. Even so, economic impacts will be felt where sound scientific
principles have shown a need. Unfortunately, and all too often,
environmental protection regulations have produced obscured
consequences in order to provide minimal, and at times, unproven
benefit to the environment. In some instances, we've had to rein in
federal agencies with budget control language or with demanding a
change in policy. We've even had to rein in the Congress by passing the
Unfunded Mandates Reform bill, which requires the Congress to assess
the impact of proposed legislation on state and local governments. The
fight is far from over. Legislation, which I have introduced, the
Private Sector Mandate Information Act, would require Congress to
consider the impact to private business of its proposed laws. Passage
of this legislation, which requires federal agencies to engage in a
``risk assessment/cost benefit analysis'' of their proposed
regulations, is also essential.
We must demand equity and fair treatment of Central Valley and
agricultural interests. Unfortunately, examples abound of the
agricultural industry and of our region being treated unfairly. For
example, I voted against NAFTA and other trade agreements because our
U.S. negotiators traded away our agricultural interests in an effort to
save our ``favored'' industries, such as high-tech. This is not
``free'' trade, but ``unfair'' trade. Our air pollution and water
pollution laws are illustrative of the unfair treatment that our region
receives. Bay Area interests pressured state and federal agencies to
challenge our use of irrigation water and agricultural pesticides and
have challenged our dairy production practices. These same Bay Area
interests have gotten state and federal agencies to look the other way
when Bay Area refineries discharge pollutants into the SF Bay. Also,
Bay Area legislators successfully obtained an exemption from the SMOG
II program, while at the same time, forcing the program in our area.
Elected officials from this region must demand fairness to the
Central Valley and to agriculture. From budgetary fairness, fairness in
our regulatory laws and regulations, and in trade agreements, we must
be vigilant in this cause.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
conference report on the farm bill. The conference report's provisions
on sugar will impose an undue burden on the working people in my
congressional district.
The conference report fails to reform the sugar price support program
so as to accommodate the interests of consumers and workers in the
Chicago area. Of even greater concern, it takes a bad sugar program and
makes it even worse by repealing the sugar forfeiture penalty and
imposing marketing allotments.
Employment in the Chicago confectionery industry has fallen 11
percent since 1991. The sugar program has contributed to this decline.
Sugar price supports and import quotas keep the cost of U.S. sugar at
least twice as high as the world price. Besides raising consumer
prices, increasing taxpayer costs and threatening the environment, the
price gap creates an artificial incentive to move domestic food and
confection manufacturing operations offshore. And this has happened in
my own back yard in Chicago with the announcement of plant shutdowns by
candy makers.
By repealing the forfeiture penalty, the conference report will
effectively increase price supports.
By imposing a complicated system of production controls, the
conference report will further disrupt the marketing of sugar and raise
sugar prices for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, the people hurt by the conference report provisions on
sugar will be ordinary taxpayers, consumers and workers who do not get
subsidies or protection like wealthy sugar producing companies do. That
is not right. And so I must oppose the conference report.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by various provisions in the Farm
Security Act of 2002 (H.R. 2646). Today, I would like to mention one
specific provision, which appears in

[[Page H2055]]

four titles in the bill--in Titles I, Commodity Programs (Sec. 1601);
Title II, Conservation (Sec. 2702); Title VI, Rural Development (Sec.
6103); and Title X, Miscellaneous (Sec. 10105). As Chairman of the
Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs, I have responsibility for oversight over regulatory
reform and paperwork reduction measures. This includes compliance with
the due process notice and comment provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) and the centralized review and approval provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
H.R. 2646 exempts certain Agriculture regulations both from the APA's
due process protections for affected parties and the PRA's required
review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under
the PRA, OMB is charged with assuring practical utility to all
information collections imposed on the public. Also, the PRA includes a
public protection clause, which assures that the public cannot be
penalized for not providing information in unauthorized paperwork.
The Department of Agriculture has one of the worst track records in
terms of compliance with the PRA. In fact, Agriculture has had the most
or second most number of violations of the PRA in each of the last
several years--116 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, 96 in FY 2000, and 67 in
FY 2001. On April 11, 2002, an Agriculture witness at our
Subcommittee's annual hearing on the PRA was unable to answer our
questions about its mis-management of the paperwork it imposes on the
public. Agriculture promised explanations by the next day; however, I
have received nothing to date. In addition, last May, I wrote OMB
Director Daniels and Interior Secretary Norton asking them to work with
Agriculture to eliminate duplication of reporting, especially for
farmers. Sadly, there are no results to date.
The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference
includes no justification for this significant change in regulatory and
paperwork promulgation procedures. This is unacceptable.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Improvement
Act of 2002.
I believe this compromise contains the best possible commodity title
for Southern agriculture.
Reforming the farm bill effective for this year has been a top
priority for Georgia producers. Since passage of the 1996 farm bill, my
producers have fully utilized planting flexibility, and the result has
been a major shift in acreage from feed grains and oilseeds to cotton.
Because producers wanted farm program benefits to more accurately
reflect their most recent plantings, it was imperative that they have
the option to update their bases. As this was a popular provision in
the House bill, the Senate included it in their bill, and the
conference report contains the measure.
For the first time in my Congressional career, peanut producers,
shellers, and manufacturers joined together in proposing a peanut
program dramatically different from the decades-old quota program. Due
to their unity, trade concerns, and political realities, the House
Agriculture Committee took the proposal under serious consideration.
The conference report retains these reforms by putting the peanut
program on par with traditional commodity programs and fairly
compensates holders of quota for their losses under the new program,
which will infuse over $500 million into the State of Georgia.
Of particular concern to Southern producers was the strict,
burdensome payment limitations contained in the Senate bill. The Senate
bill failed to take into consideration regional differences in farm
size and structure, and would have yielded many unintended
consequences. In anticipation of the Senate provision, producers in
Georgia this year prepared land to substitute other corps, such as corn
and soybeans, for cotton. The net effect, had the Senate provision been
adopted, would have been a wreck of Midwestern crop markets. We did
compromise with the Senate in the conference report on payment
limitations, but not to the extent that would compromise agriculture in
this country.
This farm bill not only brings predictability to federal farm policy
but also greatly expands and improves our soil and water conservation
programs. The federal investment in these programs is increased by more
than 80% above current program levels and costs $2 billion over the
House-passed bill, adding $17.1 billion into conservation programs over
the next 10 years. The bill makes needed changes to the CRP and EQIP
programs to make them more usable and accessible to all producers in
all regions of the country.
As the title suggests, The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
makes significant investments in, and improvements to our rural
development programs. These programs are important to sustaining rural
communities by investing in programs that will aid in the development
of rural infrastructure and create jobs in rural areas. The trade title
of the conference report is designed to comport with the United States'
international trade obligations under the WTO, and thereby to promote
more free and fair trade for the future. It reauthorizes important
programs related to trade, including the Food for Progress and Food for
Peace Programs.

The conference report illustrates to the research community that
Congress recognizes the critical need for research and makes a
significant new investment in research programs that will help reap
rewards for producers and society for many years to come.
The forestry title strengthens the commitment of Congress to
sustainable forest management practices. In addition to assisting
states in carrying out programs of forestry research, the forestry
title provides enhanced community fire protection by directing the
Administration to coordinate with local communities in implementing
rural fire protection and control strategies. It also enables the
Administration to undertake a variety of activities aimed at preventing
fires on both federal and non-federal lands.
For the first time, the farm bill contains an energy title to further
our investment in energy research and encourage the production of
biodiesel and fuel grade ethanol.
This conference report seeks to ensure access to an adequate diet and
the fruits of a productive agricultural economy to all eligible
Americans. This farm bill includes a number of changes to simplify the
food stamp program, gives greater flexibility, remove unnecessary
barriers to participation, and increase assistance to working families.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides for the
very basic elements of life that we take for granted: food on the table
provided by our nation's farmers, food stamps for those who cannot
afford nourishment, grants to communities to provide safe and adequate
quantities of drinking water, grants to help rural residents access
their local television stations, and grants to provide training to
rural firefighters and emergency personnel.
Serving as a conferee on this bill over the past 10 weeks has not
been an easy task, but I am pleased to see the conference come to a
close. I can say with clear conscience that every aspect of this bill
was thoroughly debated. As with any bill the Congress submits to the
President, it's not perfect, but it is the best possible bill that
could be reported out of conference. We have fought the good fight and
have a balanced bill--regionally and substantively--that will
contribute to the betterment of agriculture.
I thank Larry Combest and Charlie Stenholm for their diligence in
guiding the Committee in the spirit of bipartisanship and for providing
the necessary leadership over the past 2 years in getting this bill
done.
To my farmers back home, you can stop watching and waiting on
Washington--get in the fields and plant.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Farm Security Act
conference report (H.R. 2646). I appreciate the work of the Agriculture
Committee to bring a bill to the floor, but this effort falls short of
real reform for our farm programs and seriously infringes on our trade
policy.
I supported the Freedom to Farm Act in 1995. It set us on a path--
slow but steady--toward removing the heavy and costly hand of
government in managing crop programs. Subsidies were to become a thing
of the past. Unfortunately, this bill reverses that course. It sets us
on a path toward increased and never-ending taxpayer subsidies of basic
commodities.
In addition, this legislation is incompatible with our commitments to
the World Trade Organization, and I am not alone in this opinion. Let
me read some excerpts from a Congressional Research Service report that
was issued just a few days ago:

The 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture commits
member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to
discipline their domestic agricultural support programs . . .
The goal of the Agreement is to ``establish a fair and
market-oriented agricultural trading system'' through a
series of reforms that also require WTO members to lower
barriers to agricultural imports and to reduce their farm
export subsidies. The [Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture] was unprecedented in that it was the first time
(after seven previous trade rounds) that countries promised
to make substantial changes in their domestic agricultural
policies to facilitate more open trade.

The report further states:

WTO members bring to the new negotiating round a divergence
of viewpoints on how to handle domestic farm supports. These
range from countries that will seek continuing and deeper
reductions in farm subsidies, to those that are likely to
defend their internal subsidies as necessary for various
national policy reasons. Meanwhile, Congress is now widely
expected to adopt a new farm bill that would provide billions
of dollars in new farm subsidies annually (i.e., above
current service policy projections).

[[Page H2056]]

These new subsidies, and their potential to perpetuate market
distortions, undermine the U.S. argument in the Doha round
that the world's agricultural subsidies should be further
disciplined, critics argue. A number of foreign officials,
and some U.S. analysts, have pointedly noted that the likely
new U.S. farm policy raises questions about the sincerity of
the U.S. negotiating position.

We should not be undermining our negotitating efforts at the WTO, and
this conference report will unfortunately do just that.
Further, I am extremely disappointed that this final agreement
requires mandatory country of origin labeling for meat, fruits,
vegetables, fish, and peanuts. In order to meet the threshold of being
labeled a ``USA product,'' it must be born, raised and processed in the
United States.
This is ridiculous. I grew up on a ranch in southern Arizona, and my
family bought calves in Mexico to be raised and sold on our ranch. So I
guess if I bought a small calf in Mexico and raised him for 5 years on
my ranch in the United States, he would still never be a ``U.S. calf.''
Even immigrants coming to the United States are allowed to obtain U.S.
citizenship after 5 years, but no such luck for a calf. He would be
treated like a future U.S. President under the Constitution. If you're
not born here, you can't become President. And if a calf is born in
Mexico--even if his mother is a ``U.S. cow'' that went through a cut
border fence to have her calf in Mexico and returned a few days later--
this calf will never be able to be labeled as a ``USA product.''
Is this what our national policy should be? I find this outrageous
and am surprised that something like this is on the road to becoming
law.
It was my hope that we would be able to fashion a new farm policy
that helps the farmers, increases conservation efforts, reduces the
price of food for the American people, and fulfills our obligations to
our trading partners around the world.
Unfortunately, the conference report before us today does not
accomplish these goals.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, due to the death of my stepmother last
night, I will miss the vote on the farm bill, as I am traveling to Fort
Worth, TX, to be with my father and other family.
Had I been able to cast my vote on this bill, I would have voted
``no.''
The genuine problems of America's farmers and rural communities will
never be fixed by these enormously-expensive subsidies. The biggest
costs have nothing to do with helping family farmers. Although the
House and Senate each voted that nobody should receive more than
$275,000 per year in subsidies, the final bill says there's no limit on
the amount! That typifies the problems with this bill.
American farmers, consumers and taxpayers need more free enterprise,
not more big-government subsidies. I'll keep voting to help farmers by
expanding world markets, diversifying agriculture, encouraging rural
economic development and providing fairer tax treatment to farmers.
We have enormous expenses for the war on terrorism and for homeland
security, and we've got to provide whatever it takes to protect
America. But that's no excuse for huge escalation in other spending.
We're undermining our future if we don't get better control over
spending taxpayer's money. Unless we adopt the Balanced Budget
Amendment to the Constitution, requiring a balanced budget in
peacetime, we may never get spending back under control.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Kind

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. KIND. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kind of Wisconsin moves to recommit the conference
report on the bill, H.R. 2646, to the committee of conference
with instructions to the managers on the part of the House
to--
(1) agree to the provisions in section 169(a) of the Senate
amendment relating to payment limitations for commodity
programs; and
(2) increase--
(A) the amounts within the scope of conference provided in
title II of the conference report for conservation programs
by an amount equal to 50 percent of any reduction in Federal
spending resulting from agreement to the provisions referred
to in paragraph (1);
(B) the amounts within the scope of conference provided in
title IV of the conference report for nutrition programs by
an amount equal to 15 percent of any such reduction;
(C) the amounts within the scope of conference provided in
title VI of the conference report for rural development
programs by an amount equal to 25 percent of any such
reduction; and
(D) the amounts within the scope of conference provided in
title IX of the conference report for energy programs by an
amount equal to 10 percent of any such reduction.

Mr. KIND (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object, because this is the
first time a lot of Members have seen this. There is no debate on this.
Consequently, as short as it is, I think it should be read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 251, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 122]

AYES--172

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Collins
Cox
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Flake
Frank
Gallegly
Ganske
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Harman
Hefley
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pitts
Rahall
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanchez
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thune
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)

NOES--251

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English

[[Page H2057]]

Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Crane
Fattah
Istook
Jefferson
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Sullivan
Traficant

{time} 1303

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mrs. BONO, and Messrs. BAIRD, ARMEY, PICKERING,
SAXTON, and LINDER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. SOLIS, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Messrs. GALLEGLY, HOBSON,
McINNIS, and DICKS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280,
nays 141, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 123]

YEAS--280

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLauro
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Frost
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pascrell
Pastor
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
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)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NAYS--141

Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonior
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crowley
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Eshoo
Farr
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Israel
Issa
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (RI)
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Northup
Obey
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Wamp
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Burton
Cannon
Crane
Fattah
Istook
Jefferson
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Murtha
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Sullivan
Traficant

{time} 1311

So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2002, due to a family
commitment, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 123. Had I been
here, I would have vote ``yea.''

____________________