[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18938-18943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 248 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2646.

                              {time}  1200


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page 18939]]

House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
programs through fiscal year 2011, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
October 4, 2001, amendment No. 34 printed in the Congressional Record 
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had been withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment 
may be offered except one pro forma amendment each offered by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or 
their designees for the purpose of debate.
  There being no further amendments in order under the order of the 
House, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, during my service in Congress, I have 
consistently opposed agricultural welfare programs. This Farm Bill, for 
the most part, represents business-as-usual for our nation's heavily-
subsidized farmers. It's unfortunate to know that at a time of such 
advances in every other area of our lives, our agriculture sector has 
all the sophistication of a Soviet commune.
  But there is something to smile about, because this Farm Bill 
contains one vital reform: the abolition of the federal peanut quota 
program. This program is truly a relic of the Great Depression, and 
today it's put on notice that its days are numbered.
  The General Accounting Office has found the peanut program provides 
substantial benefits to a small number of producers who hold most of 
the quota, restricts peanut production by other farmers, and increases 
consumer costs by between $300 million and $500 million annually.
  For years, I've had a hard time understanding why our government 
favors one group of American peanut farmers--those who own quotas--over 
other American farmers who don't own this privilege. This program harms 
so many for the benefit of such a select few.
  My partner in reform, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, and I have always 
maintained that it was not our intention to pull the rug out from under 
our nation's peanut farmers. Rather, our goal has always been to bring 
peanuts in line with other commodities, and the legislation we 
introduced replaced quota restrictions with the same non-recourse loan 
system enjoyed by other commodities.
  Some of my colleagues may be concerned with the Farm Bill's approach, 
which shifts the burden from consumers to taxpayers.
  I agree this compromise isn't perfect, but it does meet two essential 
criteria we've set for reform. First, and most important, it repeals 
the quota system. This is the key to making the peanut industry more 
market-oriented, providing a level playing field for farmers, and 
promoting international trade.
  Second, as GAO confirmed in correspondence I will submit for the 
record, this bill ``Would essentially bring the peanut program in line 
with other commodity programs.''
  Why is this important? Because taking peanuts off a separate track 
will ultimately make it easier to enact future reforms. It also exposes 
the hidden costs of the existing program by putting it ``on the 
books.''
  There are still some concerns I have with what we're accomplishing 
today. First, this legislation compensates quota holders for the loss 
of their asset, which I must confess I think is fair. While those of us 
who want reform are willing to accept this provision, it is only under 
the understanding that the Chairman shares our commitment to let it 
expire after five years specified in this bill.
  Second, at a cost of $3.5 billion over 10 years, these reforms will 
come at some expense. With a rapidly shrinking budget surplus and 
tremendous needs in other areas, we are going to have to reexamine 
whether this is the best use of taxpayers' dollars.
  Finally, I'm concerned about findings by the GAO that several of the 
new subsidies for peanuts may be identified as ``trade distorting'' 
under the 1994 Uruguay Round of trade talks. If we expect other nations 
to lower their trade barriers, we need to ensure we're not erecting 
barriers of our own.
  Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate on this bill, I'm going to 
continue to express reservations about our overall agriculture policy. 
But at this moment, I want to commend the Chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, Mr. Combest, for bringing us closer that we've ever been to 
ending the Byzantine system of price supports for peanuts.
  I would also request unanimous consent to submit for the 
Congressional Record a September 26 letter from the General Accounting 
Office reviewing the peanut title of this Farm Bill.


                      United States General Accounting Office,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 2001.
     Hon. Christopher Shays,
     House of Representatives.

     Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski,
     House of Representatives.

     Subject Peanut Program: Potential Effects of Proposed Farm 
         Bill on Producers, Consumers, Government, and Peanut 
         Imports and Exports.

       The current federal peanut program, administered by the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to support 
     producers' incomes while ensuring an ample supply of 
     domestically produced peanuts. To accomplish these goals, the 
     program controls the domestic supply of peanuts and 
     guarantees producers a minimum price for their crops. This 
     price substantially exceeds the price of peanuts in world 
     markets. The program uses two mechanisms to control the 
     domestic supply of peanuts: (1) a national quota on the 
     number of pounds that can be sold for edible consumption 
     domestically and (2) import restrictions. While anyone can 
     grow peanuts, only producers holding quota, either through 
     ownership or rental of farmland, may sell their peanuts 
     domestically, as ``quota'' peanuts. Generally, all other 
     production, referred to as ``additional'' peanuts, must be 
     exported or crushed for oil and meal. The program protects 
     producers' incomes though a two-tiered system that sets 
     minimum support prices for quota and for additional peanuts. 
     Producers of quota peanuts are guaranteed a support price of 
     $610 per-ton, called the ``quota loan rate.'' Producers of 
     additional peanuts are guaranteed a lower support price of 
     $132 per-ton, called the ``additional loan rate.'' Producers 
     may sell their peanuts at or above these loan rates, or they 
     may place their peanuts under loan with USDA and have the 
     government sell them. This program, while long-standing, has 
     been criticized by GAO and others because, among other 
     things, it provides substantial benefits to a relatively 
     small number of producers who hold most of the quota, 
     generally restricts nonquota holders from producing peanuts 
     for the U.S. domestic market, and increases consumers' cost. 
     The program is, however, designed to operate generally at 
     ``no-net cost'' to the government. Additionally, since the 
     $610 per-ton quota loan rate is substantially higher than the 
     estimated world price--$321 to $462 per-ton from 1996 through 
     2000--the quota loan rate provides incentives for exporting 
     countries to maximize the quantity of peanuts the U.S. allows 
     to be imported under recent trade agreements. These imports 
     could displace domestically produced peanuts that otherwise 
     would enter U.S. food marketing channels.
       To address these and other concerns about the peanut 
     program, you asked that we review its structure and 
     operations under the 1996 Farm Bill, and its impacts on 
     producers, consumers, the federal government, and imports and 
     exports of peanuts. However, on July 27, 2001, before we 
     completed our review, the House Committee on Agriculture 
     approved the 2002 Farm Bill, for 2002 through 2011 (the Farm 
     Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646). If enacted, this bill would 
     fundamentally alter the peanut program's structure by, among 
     other things, eliminating the national poundage quota and 
     allowing peanut buyers to purchase domestically produced 
     peanuts at the prevailing market price. Because of your 
     interest in making the program more market-oriented, you 
     subsequently asked us to report on the potential impact of 
     this bill on producers, consumers, the federal government, 
     and imports and exports of peanuts.


   major changes to the peanut program under the house committee on 
                           agriculture's bill

       Beginning in 2002, and for the next 10 years, the bill 
     passed by the House Committee on Agriculture would eliminate 
     the national poundage quota and replace the current two-
     tiered price system with several new support mechanisms for 
     peanut quota owners and producers. These changes would 
     essentially bring the peanut program in line with other 
     commodity programs. The bill would establish the following 
     new types of support for peanut producers:
       A ``counter-cyclical'' payment. This payment would provide 
     financial assistance to producers when prices are below a 
     legislatively established target price. Peanut producers 
     would receive a payment based on the difference between a 
     USDA-calculated price and a $480 target price--known as a 
     counter-cyclical payment. The payment amount would be 
     calculated on 85 percent of a producer's peanut acres and the 
     average yield for crop years 1998 through 2001. A producer's 
     production during these years would be the producer's base 
     production. Since the payment would be calculated using 
     historic yield and acreage, producers would receive it even 
     if they choose not to plant peanuts. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the counter-cyclical 
     payments would cost an estimated $1.24 billion in government 
     expenditures over the life of the farm bill.

[[Page 18940]]

       A ``fixed, decoupled'' payment. This payment would provide 
     peanut producers with compensation similar to the production 
     flexibility contract payments provided for other crops, such 
     as cotton and wheat, in the 1996 Farm Bill (Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996). Producers 
     with base production would receive support--known as a fixed, 
     decoupled payment--in the amount of $36 per-ton on the base 
     production. This support is called ``decoupled'' because it 
     would be paid whether or not a producer chooses to grow 
     peanuts and regardless of market prices. Since the payment 
     would be calculated using historic yield and acreage, 
     producers would receive it even if they choose not to plant 
     peanuts. According to CBO, the fixed, decoupled payments 
     would cost an estimated $0.63 billion over the life of the 
     farm bill.
       A marketing assistance loan. This loan would provide 
     producers with interim financial assistance at harvest, when 
     prices are usually lower than at other times of the marketing 
     year. Producers could pledge their stored peanuts as 
     collateral for up to 9 months at a loan rate of $350 per-ton. 
     Producers would then repay the loan at a rate that is the 
     lesser of (1) $350 per-ton plus interest or (2) a USDA-
     calculated loan repayment rate, which was not specified in 
     the bill. If producers were to redeem the loan at less than 
     the loan amount, they would realize a marketing loan gain. 
     Alternatively, producers could receive an amount equivalent 
     to the marketing assistance loan gain, referred to as a loan 
     deficiency payment, by agreeing to forgo a loan. Producers 
     would also be able to forfeit their peanuts to the government 
     as payment for their loan, regardless of the market value of 
     peanuts at the time. According to CBO, the marketing loan 
     payments will cost an estimated $0.44 billion over the life 
     of the farm bill.
       A ``buy-out'' payment. Quota owners would receive 
     compensation for the lost asset value of their quota. This 
     ``buy-out'' payment would be made in five annual installments 
     of $200 per-ton during fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The 
     payment would be based on the quota owners' 2001 quota. 
     According to CBO, payments would total $1.18 billion to quota 
     owners for the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006.
       All peanut producers would be eligible to receive a 
     marketing assistance loan or a loan deficiency payment. 
     However, only those who produced peanuts during crop years 
     1998 through 2001 (the base production period) would be 
     eligible to receive counter-cyclical and fixed, decoupled 
     payments.


    all peanut producers would benefit under the house committee on 
                           agriculture's bill

       New and existing peanut producers would benefit from the 
     support mechanisms contained in the House Committee bill. 
     Table 1 shows the estimated amounts producers would receive 
     from peanut sales and government support under the current 
     peanut program compared with the House Committee bill. 
     Because the peanut provisions of the House Committee bill 
     would essentially establish minimum guaranteed prices--a 
     target price of $480 per-ton for base production and a $350 
     per-ton marketing assistance loan for all other production--
     the amounts shown in the table generally represent the 
     minimum amount producers could expect to receive for their 
     production.
       The table assumes that a peanut producer has 100 acres 
     under production, a yield of 2,500 pounds per acre, and 
     receives a market price of $325 per-ton. These production and 
     yield assumptions are based on national averages contained in 
     USDA's 1997 Census of Agriculture. The $325 market price is 
     an estimate based on conversations with shellers and area 
     marketing associations in August 2001.

  TABLE 1.--MINIMUM ESTIMATED AMOUNTS PRODUCER WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED PEANUT PROGRAMS, ON
                                             100 ACRES OF PRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        100 percent quota      100 percent additional
     Types of program supports         producer with base        producer with base       New producer without
                                           production                production              base production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current program:
    Quota support price...........  \1\ $76,250.............  Not applicable..........  Not applicable
    Additional support price......  Not applicable..........  \2\ $16,500.............  \2\ $16,500
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total amount................  $76,250.................  $16,500.................  $16,500
                                   =============================================================================
Proposed program:
    Market revenue................  \2\ $40,625.............  \3\ $40,625.............  \3\ $40,625
    Counter-cyclical..............  \4\ $9,988..............  \4\ $9,988..............  Not applicable
    Fixed, decoupled..............  \5\ $3,825..............  \5\ $3,825..............  Not applicable
    Marketing assistance loan gain  \6\ $3,125..............  \6\ $3,125..............  \6\ $3,125
    Lost asset value..............  \7\ $25,000.............  Not applicable..........  Not applicable
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total amount................  $82,563.................  $57,563.................  $43,750
                                   =============================================================================
Difference between current and      $6,313..................  $41,063.................  $27,250
 proposed program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents the product of the $610 per-ton quota support price times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times
  100 acres. Because this is considered a ``no-net cost'' program to the government, this is paid by the
  consumer.
\2\ Represents the minimum amount an additional or new peanut producer would receive, calculated as the product
  of $132 per-ton additional loan rate times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres. However, these
  producers may receive higher amounts if they sell their peanuts for export rather than placing them under
  loan.
\3\ Represents the $325 per-ton market price times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres.
\4\ Represents the $480 per-ton target price minus the $350 loan rate and the $36 per-ton fixed, decoupled
  payment times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres times 85 percent. Producers would receive this
  payment even if they choose not to plant peanuts since it is calculated using historic yield and acreage.
\5\ Represents the $36 per-ton fixed, decoupled payment times 1.25 tons (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres
  times 85 percent. Producers would receive this payment even if they choose not to plant peanuts since it is
  calculated using historic yield and acreage.
\6\ Represents either a marketing loan gain or a loan deficiency payment. It is the product of the difference
  between the $350 per-ton marketing assistance loan and the $325 per-ton market price times 1.25 tons (2,500
  pounds per acre) times 100 acres. If the market price decreases, these government support costs would increase
  to make up the difference between the lower market price and the marketing assistance loan rate.
\7\ Represents the product of the $200 per-ton compensation for the lost asset value of quota times 1.25 tons
  (2,500 pounds per acre) times 100 acres. This ``buy-out'' payment is only paid during fiscal years 2002-2006.
 
Note.--Under the proposed program, producers with base production could also receive support as a new producer
  if they expand production.
 
Source: GAO's analysis of USDA's data and the House Committee bill.

       As the table shows, most of the government's payments under 
     the House Committee bill would go to quota peanut producers 
     with base production, followed by payments to additional 
     peanut producers with base production. This is because quota 
     holders and additional producers would be eligible to receive 
     the counter-cyclical payment, the fixed, decoupled payment, 
     and a marketing assistance loan payment. In addition, quota 
     owners would be compensated for the value of their lost 
     asset.
       Nevertheless, current additional and new peanut producers 
     potentially gain the most under the House Committee bill 
     because they could (1) market their peanuts in the domestic 
     edible market and (2) receive a minimum guaranteed price of 
     $350 per-ton under the marketing assistance loan. For 
     example, as the table shows, producers of additional peanuts 
     with base production on 100 acres would have been guaranteed 
     $16,500 per year under the existing program, compared with 
     $57,563 under the proposed bill.
       Peanut production would be expected to increase to the 
     extent that the House Committee bill would provide increased 
     returns to producers that are higher than the returns they 
     would have received under the old program or that are higher 
     relative to other commodities that they produce. If 
     production increases, it is likely to cause market prices for 
     peanuts to fall and government payments to increase.


  Consumers Should Pay Less for Peanuts, but the Government Would Pay 
                                  More

       Under the House Committee on Agriculture's bill, the burden 
     of supporting peanut producers would shift from consumers to 
     the government. Consumers--defined as shellers, 
     manufacturers, and the general public--should pay less for 
     domestically produced peanuts because the proposed 
     legislation would eliminate the $610 quota support price, 
     which is substantially higher than the estimated $321 to $462 
     per-ton world price over the past 5 years.
       While consumers should benefit under the House Committee 
     bill, government costs would increase. For example, the 
     current peanut program is intended to operate with no net 
     cost to the government, while the House Committee bill would 
     provide direct government support payments to peanut 
     producers. CBO estimates that these direct support payments 
     would cost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years. This cost 
     estimate includes counter-cyclical and fixed, decoupled 
     payments, marketing assistance loans, and the buy-out 
     payments for the lost asset value of the quota. To the extent 
     to which producers expand production beyond CBO's estimates, 
     increases in government costs could be greater than 
     estimated.


  proposed program provisions may be considered trade distorting but 
                 should decrease incentives for imports

       Several of the new support mechanisms contained in the 
     House Committee bill may be identified as ``trade 
     distoring''--altering

[[Page 18941]]

     free trade of peanuts--under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement 
     on Agriculture. For example, gains resulting from loan 
     deficiency payments and marketing assistance loans for other 
     crops, such as corn and cotton, have previously been 
     identified as trade distorting by USDA. Our obligation under 
     the Uruguay Round Agreement is to hold the amount of such 
     U.S. trade-distorting government support below $19.1 billion 
     annually by 2000. In 1998, USDA notified the World Trade 
     Organization that 12 commodities received support identified 
     as trade distorting, but the amount remained within the cap. 
     Negotiations are under way, however, to further reduce trade-
     distorting government support.
       Although some of the new support mechanisms may be 
     considered trade distorting, to the extent to which they lead 
     to lower domestic peanut prices, these supports should reduce 
     incentives for imports, primarily from Argentina and Mexico. 
     According to peanut shellers, domestically produced peanuts 
     would be purchased at prices that are less than the current 
     $610 per-ton quota loan rate. The shellers also hope that a 
     lower U.S. peanut price will help them increase exports.


                            agency comments

       We received oral comments on a draft of this report from 
     USDA's Farm Service Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     and the Economic Research Service and the U.S. Trade 
     Representative. They generally agreed with the substance of 
     the report and provided technical and clarifying comments, 
     which we incorporated as appropriate. FSA officials also 
     informed us there are certain items in the House Committee 
     bill that will require technical clarification. USDA has sent 
     a letter to the House Agricultural Committee requesting 
     guidance and clarification of these issues and was awaiting a 
     response from the Committee as of the date of this letter.


                         scope and methodology

       In order to respond to your request, we obtained and 
     analyzed the Farm Security Act of 2001, testimony provided by 
     producer and industry officials to the House Committee on 
     Agriculture in June 2001 and the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in July 2001, the World 
     Trade Organization and the USDA Economic Research Service 
     reports on domestic supports, the USDA's 1997 Census of 
     Agriculture, and other information pertaining to domestic and 
     international peanut production. We also interviewed 
     representatives from USDA, peanut area marketing 
     associations, peanut shellers, and a product manufacturer 
     concerning the bill's provisions and potential impacts. To 
     estimate the minimum amount of producer receipts, we reviewed 
     the applicable provisions of the House Committee bill, 
     obtained and examined data on peanut production, yield, and 
     price.
       We conducted our work from July through August 2001, in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.
       We will provide copies of this report to the congressional 
     committees with jurisdiction over farm programs; the 
     Honorable Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture; 
     Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative; and 
     other interested parties. The letter will also be available 
     on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov.
       If you have any questions about this letter, please contact 
     me at (202) 512-3841 or Assistant Director Robert C. Summers 
     at 404-679-1839. Other key contributors to this report were 
     Carol Bray, Mary Denigan-Macauley, and John C. Smith.

                                          Lawrence J. Dyckman,

                      Director, Natural Resources and Environment.

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2646, 
the Farm Security Act of 2001. Today's farm bill is the result of two 
years' work by Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm.
  On September 18, 1999, eight other members of the House Agriculture 
Committee, Republicans and Democrats, came to Hutchinson, Kansas for a 
field hearing on the State of the Farm Economy. The hearing came at a 
time when Congress was poised to act on its second emergency assistance 
bill in as many years.
  With the passage of a disaster package in October of 1998, the 
Chairman of the committee saw it appropriate to come to Kansas the next 
year and begin to hear from farmers and ranchers on suggested changes 
for farm programs. For the next two years, farmers continued to 
struggle, and Congress continued to respond with additional emergency 
spending bills to help producers cope with the sustained period of 
depressed commodity prices.
  During this time, the House Agriculture Committee was not satisfied 
with simply passing disaster bills with no end in sight. The Chairman 
of the Committee took the lead in getting new ideas from farmers, 
ranchers, economists, and other policy experts concerned about U.S. 
agriculture.
  Now, over two years and 40 hearings later, we are here to consider 
the House version of a new farm bill, H.R. 2646--the Farm Security Act.
  The bill before the House today represents a bipartisan compromise, 
worked through the full committee process. The concepts of the bill 
were initially released as a draft for members and producers to comment 
on the proposal. Legislation was drafted, a two-day mark-up was held, 
and on August 2nd, the Farm Security Act was reported favorably by 
voice vote of the full House Agriculture Committee.


                              CONSERVATION

  This bill responds to producers, consumers, and the American public 
as a whole. First, I would like to speak to an area that has recently 
been discusses at length: conservation.
  As the Vice-Chairman of the subcommittee on Conservation, I am proud 
to support this bill. Originally, I introduced my own version of a 
conservation title, H.R. 1938--The Conservation Enhancement Act. I am 
pleased that many of the provisions of my bill are included in the Farm 
Security Act. The bill includes an 80 percent funding increase in 
conservation spending and gives the largest increase to a program for 
working lands that remain in production agriculture, the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
  The EQIP program is instrumental in protecting watersheds, improving 
environmental practices, and addressing some of the most difficult 
environmental problems we face today. However, as we heard in hearings 
from producers and conservation groups, EQIP can't work if it doesn't 
have adequate funding or flexibility. This bill goes a long way to 
address both of those important issues.
  For small producers, we heard that contracts were too long to be 
practical and that financial assistance was not made available until 
all the work, and costs, were already paid by the farmer. For farmers 
with extremely limited resources, the best intentions can not overcome 
economic realities of farming. In this bill, we address those issues by 
allowing costs to be reimbursed earlier and reducing the length of 
contracts to allow more small farmers to participate.
  We also heard from livestock producers about their need to access 
technical assistance and other the resources available to meet the 
demands of an increasingly regulated environment. This bill reserves 50 
percent of the EQIP funds for livestock producers. If we truly want to 
fix the problems that exist today, we must allow livestock producers to 
access the programs that are designed to help address environmental 
problems.
  In addition, the bill creates a water conservation program. While we 
often focus on water quality issues, for many parts of the country, 
water conservation is the first step that must be taken to improve the 
environment.
  There are many other provisions of the Conservation title, but I just 
want to touch on a couple of programs to help explain to my colleagues 
the sheer size of the work farmers and ranchers are doing today.
  The Conservation Reserve Program is one of the most important 
programs at the United States Department of Agriculture, in terms of 
reducing water and wind erosion. According to the USDA, each acre of 
CRP reduces erosion by 19 tons per year. The program has also been 
extremely successful in enhancing wildlife habitat for many species. 
Under this bill, CRP is expanded to 39.2 million acres. 39.2 million 
acres is hard for most of us to conceive. My own yard is about 4 tenths 
of an acre, and for my lawnmower, that is plenty.
  However, the amount of land under the protection of the Conservation 
Reserve Program is truly enormous.If CRP was a state, it would be the 
largest state East of the Mississippi. If the area covered by CRP ran 
along the eastern seaboard, it would entirely cover Maine, Vermont, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware. For those of you 
out west, CRP is almost as big as the entire state of Washington.
  The Committee bill also increases wetlands conservation by adding an 
additional 1.5 million acres to the Wetlands Reserve Program. This 
increase brings the total land in this program up to 2.5 million acres. 
The total amount of land protected under these two programs and removed 
from production agriculture is over 41 million acres--an area almost as 
large as the state of Oklahoma.
  You will likely hear today that we need more conservation spending, 
and at times, it is hard to find a reason to say no, but within the 
Committee we worked hard to balance demands with the resources 
available. Conservation and the protection of the environment are 
important priorities, but they are not the only issues before the 
committee. There are nine titles in this bill, and each one represents 
an important part of our policies to help rural America.


                             FARM PROGRAMS

  Finally, I would like to speak directly on the changes made to farm 
programs. Farmers and

[[Page 18942]]

ranchers are experiencing difficult times, but they like several 
features of the current farm program.
  The proposed farm bill retains the flexibility farmers need. The bill 
retains a market-oriented structure that allows farmers to decide what 
to plant. The bill also answers the single largest concern we heard 
from producers throughout the hearings of the last two years--the need 
for a counter cyclical program.
  While no single consensus from all the producers was developed, the 
Committee heard, loud and clear, that some type of a counter cyclical 
assistance program was needed. When prices fall dramatically, there 
does need to be a safety net, and it should not take an act of Congress 
to kick in. This bill provides farmers with a simple, effective counter 
cyclical program.
  Kansas net farm income dropped by 39.9 percent, last year. This is 
the fourth largest drop of net income from agriculture of any state in 
the nation. Clearly, this bill is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. 
Conservation and farm programs are two of the largest titles of this 
farm bill, but there area 7 others and all 9 titles have been carefully 
crafted to address the concerns we heard from constituents across 
America during our committee hearings.
  This is a balanced bill that continues important programs and create 
new ones to address emerging needs, while still remaining within budget 
constraints.
  The bill is important for this nation's farmers and ranchers, it is 
important for all of us concerned about a clean environment, and it is 
important security and safety of this nation's food supply.
  Mr. Chairman, with these points in mind, I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill is an opportunity to help 
American farmers meet the challenges of a new century. We are the 
strongest farming nation in the world, with abundant food at reasonable 
prices and we export far more than we import. However, this comes at a 
very high price. Our environment, despite some impressive improvements, 
still suffers. The structure of our current farming industry uses too 
much water, generates too much pollution, and too much of our best 
agricultural land is lost due to sprawl, erosion, and misuse. Smaller 
farmers continue to be forced to sell while entry into the business is 
prohibitively expensive and difficult.
  Perverse programs mean more farmers are dependent on ever-increasing 
subsidies. The complex web of loans, credits, quotas, and direct 
payments is expensive for Americans both as taxpayers and consumers. 
The support system tends to obscure financial impacts while it distorts 
decisions farmers make regarding type and quantity of crops, often to 
the detriment of the long-term productivity of the land and the health 
of the environment. At a time when we seek to open foreign markets to 
more American production, we are still sheltering ours in ways that 
violate the spirit, if not the letter, of our own trade agreements.
  The United States has been able to survive and some farmers thrive 
under this system because we had seemingly inexhaustible supplies of 
fertile land, abundant water, tolerance for cutting environmental 
corners, and generous financial support. That world is changing. Our 
environmental standards are getting stronger. Due to the threats of 
sprawl, water pollution, pesticides, fertilizer, and the excesses of 
factory farms, the public will never tolerate backsliding. 
Environmental standards will only get stronger still.
  Past practices and government policies have too often stressed our 
water supplies and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Water systems 
are depleted far beyond their ability to replenish supply. The 
inevitable result is more controversy and conflict between competing 
users. The sad plight of the Klamath Basin in the Pacific Northwest is 
one example of an emerging pattern all over the West, which will only 
get worse over time.
  American agriculture and our public that depends on it can do better. 
We must begin now to shift from subsidies that encourage production of 
some crops, regardless of need, to the protection of land and the 
people who farm. Paying the farmer to be able to do the right thing is 
the most cost-effective solution. It is also the only solution that is 
sustainable for the environment and the taxpayer. Over the course of 
the next 10 years, we must implement this new vision of agriculture for 
the new century. In the meantime, we must protect the farms and farmers 
who choose to take advantage of this opportunity.
  Until we have a bill that makes this transition, I must withhold my 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Burr of North Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
fiscal year 2011, pursuant to House Resolution 248, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 291, 
nays 120, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               YEAS--291

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)

[[Page 18943]]


     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--120

     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Petri
     Pitts
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weiner
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachus
     Baker
     Burton
     Callahan
     Cox
     Duncan
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     Mollohan
     Olver
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wexler

                              {time}  1225

  Messrs. Shays, Quinn, Honda and McNulty and Mrs. Morella changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. McKinney changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 371, 
final passage of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to District business which required 
my attention, I am unable to be present for final passage of H.R. 2646, 
The Farm Security Act, rollcall No. 371. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________