[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4017-S4018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, 
        and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 667. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to strengthen 
payment limitations for commodity payments and benefits; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the 
importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide 
an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, 
assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.
  Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms 
reap most of the benefits of these payments. The reality is, over 60 
percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's 
farmers.
  What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit 
small and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own 
demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land 
prices and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity 
prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.
  The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a 
bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to target 
federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The 
amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to 
$75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to 
$150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this 
limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of 
$275,000.
  That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel 
strongly the farm bill failed Iowa when it failed to effectively 
address the issue of payment limitations. This is our chance to remedy 
the problem.
  This bi-partisan legislation provides a limit of $40,000 for direct 
payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical pavement, and $175,000 for LDPs 
and marketing loan gains. The combined limit is $275,000.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation and to 
encourage the development of reasonable, legitimate payment limits.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 667

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

     SECTION 1. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$40,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``$65,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000'';
       (3) by striking ``(d)'' and all that follows through the 
     end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency 
     Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--
       ``(1) Loan commodities.--The total amount of the following 
     gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed $87,500:
       ``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities 
     under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower 
     level than the original loan rate established for the loan 
     commodity under that subtitle.
       ``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance 
     loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by 
     forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the 
     repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by 
     repayment instead of forfeiture.
       ``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more 
     loan commodities under that subtitle.
       ``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity 
     certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1 
     or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary, 
     including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a 
     marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Single Farming Operation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) through 
     (d), subject to paragraph (2), if a person participates only 
     in a single farming operation and receives, directly or 
     indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section 
     through the operation, the total amount of payments or gains 
     (as applicable) covered by this section that the person may 
     receive during any crop year may not exceed twice the 
     applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), 
     and (d).
       ``(2) Individuals.--The total amount of payments or gains 
     (as applicable) covered by this section that an individual 
     person may receive during any crop year may not exceed 
     $275,000.

[[Page S4018]]

       ``(i) Spouse Equity.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) 
     through (d), except as provided in subsection (e)(2)(C)(i), 
     if an individual and spouse are covered by subsection 
     (e)(2)(C) and receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or 
     gain covered by this section, the total amount of payments or 
     gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the 
     individual and spouse may jointly receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts 
     specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d).
       ``(j) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2003, the 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations--
       ``(A) to ensure that total payments and gains described in 
     this section made to or through joint operations or multiple 
     entities under the primary control of a person, in 
     combination with the payments and gains received directly by 
     the person, shall not exceed twice the applicable dollar 
     amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       ``(B) in the case of a person that in the aggregate owns, 
     conducts farming operations, or provides custom farming 
     services on land with respect to which the aggregate payments 
     received by the person exceed the applicable dollar amounts 
     specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d), to attribute all 
     payments and gains made to the person on crops produced on 
     the land to--
       ``(i) a person that rents land for a share of the crop that 
     is less than the usual and customary rate, as determined by 
     the Secretary;
       ``(ii) a person that provides custom farming services 
     through arrangements under which--

       ``(I) all or part of the compensation for the services is 
     at risk;
       ``(II) farm management services are provided by--

       ``(aa) the same person;
       ``(bb) an immediate family member; or
       ``(cc) an entity or individual that has a business 
     relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as 
     determined by the Secretary; or

       ``(III) more than \2/3\ of all payments received for custom 
     farming services are received by--

       ``(aa) the same person;
       ``(bb) an immediate family member; or
       ``(cc) an entity or individual that has a business 
     relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as 
     determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(iii) a person under such other arrangements as the 
     Secretary determines are established to transfer payments 
     from persons that would otherwise exceed the applicable 
     dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d); 
     and
       ``(C) to ensure that payments attributed under this section 
     to a person other than the direct recipient shall also count 
     toward the limit of the direct recipient.
       ``(2) Primary control.--The regulations under paragraph (1) 
     shall define `primary control' to include a joint operation 
     or multiple entity in which a person owns an interest that is 
     greater than the total interests held by other persons that 
     materially participate on a regular, substantial, and 
     continuous basis in the management of the operation or 
     entity.''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

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

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a bill that 
imposes meaningful farm payment limitations.
  A gentleman from Arkansas is the principal landlord of a 61,000-acre 
farm. Although he serves as president of a tractor dealership with 
sales over $30 million, this ``farmer'' received $38 million in farm 
subsidies over 5 years. Stories like these about corporate farmers who 
received millions of dollars in Federal agriculture payments undermine 
support for the real purpose of our farm program: to help family 
farmers.
  What do I mean by family farmers? I am talking about people out there 
living in a rural community, trying to raise a family and trying to 
operate a family farm and trying to raise enough food to support 
themselves. They go to town and buy their supplies, keeping small town 
life not only viable, but also vibrant. I am talking about a network of 
food producers scattered across this country that represents, in my 
judgment, food security for our country.
  And this goal of helping family farmers with a safety net in the form 
of farm program payments during tough times is something that has 
become much different over a long period of time. It is not the case 
that we are fighting over farm program payments for family farmers.
  But regrettably, millions of dollars of farm payments are not going 
to small towns and family farms. They are going to big cities and 
corporate America. They are going to that millionaire farmer in 
Arkansas, to Ted Turner, and city dwellers who visit their farm twice a 
year. The biggest operations keep getting the bulk of the farm benefits 
while the small farmers are getting squeezed out of the rural areas. 
When this happens, the family farm operation can't compete with the 
larger enterprises because of the financial disadvantages.
  My fear is that if we do not do something about this problem, the 
American people are going to push back on this issue and say, ``This is 
not why we are paying taxes. We really support family farms. We believe 
family farms are important for America. But we don't believe we are 
paying taxes so you can transfer money to the tune of millions, even 
hundreds of millions, to those who need it least and ought not be 
getting farm payments.''
  So I am co-sponsoring this legislation. This bill would impose modest 
limits on the amount of farm payments that any farm operation can 
receive in one year. These limits would have virtually no impact on 
family farms and would strengthen our agriculture program by targeting 
the payments to these smaller operations.
  Here are the limitations that my bill would impose: the bill would 
limit direct payments to producers to $40,000. Limits on counter-
cyclical payments would be $60,000. The bill limits Marketing Loan 
Gains and Loan Deficiency Payments to $175,000. The overall limit for a 
farm is $275,000. The limits would save the Federal Government more 
than $1 billion over 10 years.
  In times of budget deficits, government expenditures need to be 
targeted to those who need it most. Fortune 500 companies aren't the 
intended targets of farm legislation, family farmers are. Limiting farm 
payments to those who provide the food security of this country ought 
to be the farm policy of this country and this legislation is a step in 
that direction.
                                 ______