[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 77 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4361-H4362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
    AMENDING AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT TO REAUTHORIZE STATE MEDIATION 
                                PROGRAMS

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the Senate bill (S. 643) to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 
1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 643

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

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF STATE MEDIATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 
     U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2010''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 643. S. 643 will 
reauthorize USDA's Certified State Mediation Program through 2010.
  The State Mediation Program provides agricultural producers and the 
government with the means to allow a neutral third party to settle 
disputes between producers and USDA instead of going through 
potentially costly and time-consuming court cases.
  I have introduced S. 643's companion bill in the House, H.R. 1930. 
Since the bills are identical, it would be the most expedient thing to 
simply pass S. 643 so

[[Page H4362]]

that the bill can go on to the White House for the President's 
signature.
  What is the Certified State Mediation Program? When producers and the 
USDA are in disagreement regarding loans, wetlands remediation, 
conservation compliance, grazing, pesticides, and other issues deemed 
appropriate by the Secretary of Agriculture, any State with a program 
can allow a mediator to help solve the differences between the 
producers and USDA. Both sides must agree to the mediator chosen to 
help resolve the dispute.
  Mediators can only help reach an agreement that both sides agree to 
abide by. The mediators are not arbitrators whose decisions are legally 
enforceable. The mediators work to find consensus. If the two sides 
involved in the dispute cannot reach agreement, they still have all the 
legal options available to them. States that decide to participate in 
the program must go through a certification process and provide 30 
percent of the program's operating costs.
  The program is authorized to spend up to $7.5 million per year but, 
in 2004, only $3,950,000 was needed to operate the program in over 30 
States. The program provides a great deal of bang for the buck and has 
been highly successful and useful.
  The USDA's Farm Service Agency, FSA, works with States to ensure that 
their mediation programs are meeting all required standards, and it 
also helps those States that are interested in becoming certified to 
navigate and complete the approval process. One of the most important 
aspects of the program is that it provides strict confidentiality for 
those who decide to use the mediation program.
  I have a breakdown of the States that are currently certified 
mediation States and the amount of money they received in 2004, I am 
happy to make that information available to any interested Member.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 643 to ensure that an 
extremely practical and cost-efficient program continues to be 
utilized.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I also rise today in strong support of S. 643, which 
is the companion legislation of H.R. 1930 introduced by my 
distinguished colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  This legislation would extend the authorization for the State 
Mediation Grant Program carried out by USDA's Farm Service Agency to 
provide Federal matching grants to State mediation programs.
  Currently 32 States, including my home State of South Dakota, are 
certified to receive matching funds under this program, and two more 
States are working on becoming certified. To receive Federal funding, a 
State program must meet certain criteria and have at least a 30 percent 
match in State funding.
  This program was created in 1987 as a result of the credit crisis 
facing agriculture in the mid-1980s. Since its inception, an original 
intent of dealing with credit and loan disputes, Congress has expanded 
its scope to cover a number of other issues stemming from farm program 
participation, everything from wetland determinations to commodity 
program eligibility and pesticide drift.
  Early on, leaders in South Dakota recognized the value that such a 
program could provide to the farmers, ranchers, and lenders in our 
State, and they created a program in 1988 to deal with agricultural 
credit disputes. It has been a resounding success. In the more than 16 
years that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture has operated its 
mediation program, it has received more than 4,500 requests for 
mediation.
  In South Dakota, mediation is available for agricultural credit 
disputes involving any amount of money. However, a creditor must submit 
to mediation in any credit dispute involving more than $50,000.
  This popular program provides many benefits to both agricultural 
borrowers and lenders in many States across the country. We all know 
that lending disputes can become contentious, and this program enables 
participants to negotiate and create their own mutually agreeable 
solutions to such disputes.
  Also, the cost of mediation is much less than the formal appeals 
process at USDA, averaging less than $700 per year, as opposed to the 
thousands of dollars it can cost to go through the National Appeals 
Division. The length of time to reach conclusions is also much shorter, 
normally several days, in contrast to appeals cases that can stretch 
for months.
  Mediation works because it is a time-saving and affordable 
alternative to litigation and appeals. It also promotes communication 
between disputing parties rather than confrontation and animosity. And, 
in my communications with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture 
staff, mediation generally results in more successful and enduring 
resolution to most credit disputes.
  This program has worked for farmers and agricultural lenders in South 
Dakota and across the country for almost 20 years, and I am pleased to 
support S. 643 to extend the authorization of this program through 
2010.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 643.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________