[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11899-11906]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 2001 CROP YEAR ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE ACT

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2213) to respond to the continuing economic crisis adversely 
affecting American agricultural producers, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2213

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

     SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, use $4,622,240,000 of funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a market loss 
     assistance payment to owners and producers on a farm that are 
     eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 2001

[[Page 11900]]

     under a production flexibility contract for the farm under 
     the Agriculture Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to 
     owners and producers on a farm under this section shall be 
     proportionate to the amount of the total contract payments 
     received by the owners and producers for fiscal year 2001 
     under a production flexibility contract for the farm under 
     the Agricultural Market Transition Act.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL OILSEEDS PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $423,510,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to make a supplemental payment 
     under section 202 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to producers of 
     the 2000 crop of oilseeds that previously received a payment 
     under such section.

     SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL PEANUT PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $54,210,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental 
     payment under section 204(a) of the Agricultural Risk 
     Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 
     note) to producers of quota peanuts or additional peanuts for 
     the 2000 crop year that previously received a payment under 
     such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment rate 
     specified in such section to reflect the amount made 
     available for payments under this section.

     SEC. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL TOBACCO PAYMENT.

       (a) Supplemental Payment.--The Secretary shall use 
     $129,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     provide a supplemental payment under section 204(b) of the 
     Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 
     7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to eligible persons (as defined in such 
     section) that previously received a payment under such 
     section.
       (b) Special Rule for Georgia.--The Secretary may make 
     payments under this section to eligible persons in Georgia 
     only if the State of Georgia agrees to use the sum of 
     $13,000,000 to make payments at the same time, or 
     subsequently, to the same persons in the same manner as 
     provided for the Federal payments under this section, as 
     required by section 204(b)(6) of the Agricultural Risk 
     Protection Act of 2000.

     SEC. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL WOOL AND MOHAIR PAYMENT.

       The Secretary shall use $16,940,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental 
     payment under section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 
     106-387), to producers of wool, and producers of mohair, for 
     the 2000 marketing year that previously received a payment 
     under such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment 
     rate specified in such section to reflect the amount made 
     available for payments under this section.

     SEC. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary shall use $84,700,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to provide supplemental 
     assistance under section 204(e) of the Agricultural Risk 
     Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 
     note) to producers and first-handlers of the 2000 crop of 
     cottonseed that previously received assistance under such 
     section.

     SEC. 7. SPECIALTY CROPS.

       (a) Base State Grants.--The Secretary shall use $26,000,000 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants 
     to the several States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to 
     be used to support activities that promote agriculture. The 
     amount of the grant shall be--
       (1) $500,000 to each of the several States; and
       (2) $1,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (b) Grants for Value Of Production.--The Secretary shall 
     use $133,400,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to make a grant to each of the several States in an amount 
     that represents the proportion of the value of specialty crop 
     production in the State in relation to the national value of 
     specialty crop production, as follows:
       (1) California, $63,320,000.
       (2) Florida, $16,860,000.
       (3) Washington, $9,610,000.
       (4) Idaho, $3,670,000.
       (5) Arizona, $3,430,000.
       (6) Michigan, $3,250,000.
       (7) Oregon, $3,220,000.
       (8) Georgia, $2,730,000.
       (9) Texas, $2,660,000.
       (10) New York, $2,660,000.
       (11) Wisconsin, $2,570,000.
       (12) North Carolina, $1,540,000.
       (13) Colorado, $1,510,000.
       (14) North Dakota, $1,380,000.
       (15) Minnesota, $1,320,000.
       (16) Hawaii, $1,150,000.
       (17) New Jersey, $1,100,000.
       (18) Pennsylvania, $980,000.
       (19) New Mexico, $900,000.
       (20) Maine, $880,000.
       (21) Ohio, $800,000.
       (22) Indiana, $660,000.
       (23) Nebraska, $640,000.
       (24) Massachusetts, $640,000.
       (25) Virginia, $620,000.
       (26) Maryland, $500,000.
       (27) Louisiana, $460,000.
       (28) South Carolina, $440,000.
       (29) Tennessee, $400,000.
       (30) Illinois, $400,000.
       (31) Oklahoma, $390,000.
       (32) Alabama, $300,000.
       (33) Delaware, $290,000.
       (34) Mississippi, $250,000.
       (35) Kansas, $210,000.
       (36) Arkansas, $210,000.
       (37) Missouri, $210,000.
       (38) Connecticut, $180,000.
       (39) Utah, $140,000.
       (40) Montana, $140,000.
       (41) New Hampshire, $120,000.
       (42) Nevada, $120,000.
       (43) Vermont, $120,000.
       (44) Iowa, $100,000.
       (45) West Virginia, $90,000.
       (46) Wyoming, $70,000.
       (47) Kentucky, $60,000.
       (48) South Dakota, $40,000.
       (49) Rhode Island, $40,000.
       (50) Alaska, $20,000.
       (c) Specialty Crop Priority.--As a condition on the receipt 
     of a grant under this section, a State shall agree to give 
     priority to the support of specialty crops in the use of the 
     grant funds.
       (d) Specialty Crop Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``specialty crop'' means any agricultural crop, except wheat, 
     feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco.

     SEC. 8. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to each of the 
     several States to be used by the States to cover direct and 
     indirect costs related to the processing, transportation, and 
     distribution of commodities to eligible recipient agencies. 
     The grants shall be allocated to States in the manner 
     provided under section 204(a) of the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)).

     SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR 
                   COTTON PRODUCERS.

       (a) Conditions on Payment to State.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1121 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in section 101(a) of division A of Public 
     Law 105-277 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note), and as amended by section 
     754 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-42), is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Conditions on Payment to State.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia 
     under subsection (a) only if the State--
       ``(1) contributes $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and 
     agrees to expend all amounts in the indemnity fund by not 
     later than January 1, 2002 (or as soon as administratively 
     practical thereafter), to provide compensation to cotton 
     producers as provided in such subsection;
       ``(2) requires the recipient of a payment from the 
     indemnity fund to repay the State, for deposit in the 
     indemnity fund, the amount of any duplicate payment the 
     recipient otherwise recovers for such loss of cotton, or the 
     loss of proceeds from the sale of cotton, up to the amount of 
     the payment from the indemnity fund; and
       ``(3) agrees to deposit in the indemnity fund the proceeds 
     of any bond collected by the State for the benefit of 
     recipients of payments from the indemnity fund, to the extent 
     of such payments.''.
       (b) Additional Disbursements From the Indemnity Fund.--
     Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Additional Disbursement to Cotton Ginners.--The State 
     of Georgia shall use funds remaining in the indemnity fund, 
     after the provision of compensation to cotton producers in 
     Georgia under subsection (a) (including cotton producers who 
     file a contingent claim, as defined and provided in section 
     5.1 of chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of 
     Georgia), to compensate cotton ginners (as defined and 
     provided in such section) that--
       ``(1) incurred a loss as the result of--
       ``(A) the business failure of any cotton buyer doing 
     business in Georgia; or
       ``(B) the failure or refusal of any such cotton buyer to 
     pay the contracted price that had been agreed upon by the 
     ginner and the buyer for cotton grown in Georgia on or after 
     January 1, 1997, and had been purchased or contracted by the 
     ginner from cotton producers in Georgia;
       ``(2) paid cotton producers the amount which the cotton 
     ginner had agreed to pay for such cotton received from such 
     cotton producers in Georgia; and
       ``(3) satisfy the procedural requirements and deadlines 
     specified in chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of 
     Georgia applicable to cotton ginner claims.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``Upon the establishment of the 
     indemnity fund, and not later than October 1, 1999, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''.

     SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PAYMENT LIMITATIONS REGARDING LOAN 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOAN GAINS.

       Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of the payments 
     specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a person

[[Page 11901]]

     shall be entitled to receive for one or more contract 
     commodities and oilseeds under the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) during the 2001 crop 
     year may not exceed $150,000.

     SEC. 11. TIMING OF, AND LIMITATION ON, EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Deadline for Expenditures.--All expenditures required 
     by this Act shall be made not later than September 30, 2001. 
     Any funds made available by this Act and remaining unexpended 
     by October 1, 2001, shall be deemed to be unexpendable, and 
     the authority provided by this Act to expend such funds is 
     rescinded effective on that date.
       (b) Total Amount of Expenditures.--The total amount 
     expended under this Act may not exceed $5,500,000,000. If the 
     payments required by this Act would result in expenditures in 
     excess of such amount, the Secretary shall reduce such 
     payments on a pro rata basis as necessary to ensure that such 
     expenditures do not exceed such amount.

     SEC. 12. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Promulgation.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act. The promulgation of the 
     regulations and administration of 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'').
       (b) 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 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, I rise today to advocate passage of H.R. 2213, a bill to 
provide economic assistance to farm producers for the 2001 crop year. 
The current farm recession, in its 4th year, ranks among the deepest in 
our Nation's history, along with the Great Depression, the post-World 
War I and II recessions and the financial ruin of the 1980s.
  There are many factors that contribute to this dismal situation. 
First, energy prices have skyrocketed, pushing diesel fuel and 
fertilizer to more than twice last year's prices. Second, overseas 
markets continue the slump that started with the Asian financial 
crisis, and that has been compounded by the steadily increasing 
strength of the dollar abroad.
  USDA estimates that the value of the dollar is up to 25 percent 
relative to our customers' currencies and up 40 percent relative to our 
competitors' currencies, making our farm commodities significantly less 
marketable in overseas markets. Finally, tariff charged in our 
agricultural exports remain high, averaging 5 times those levied by the 
U.S.
  Clearly, additional assistance for our farmers is needed. H.R. 2213 
makes a good start on providing such assistance. With the help of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), in 
this year's budget, Congress made available funding for fiscal year 
2001 and fiscal year 2002 specifically to address the need for the 
assistance in the 2001 crop year.
  The legislation before us today makes $5.5 billion available for that 
purpose. In my opinion, this amount is not sufficient to meet the needs 
of our producers, and I intend to work further as this bill moves 
forward through the legislative process to improve that message. But 
today the important point is to move the process along, because the 
fiscal year 2001 funds will expire unless delivered to hard-pressed 
farmers by the end of September, it is imperative that a bill be sent 
to the President for signature before the August recess.
  To ensure that outcome, the House must move the legislation this 
week. Despite its current imperfections, farmers need House passage of 
H.R. 2213 today.
  The Committee on Agriculture is now in the process of writing a new 
multiyear farm bill that will end the need for these annual emergency 
packages. We expect to bring that bill to the floor before the end of 
the year and hope to have it in place for next year's crop. But today 
we are dealing with the immediate crisis facing farmers in this year's 
crop, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to support passage of 
H.R. 2213.

                              {time}  1145

  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that there are 
some misconceptions currently being spread about the bill, including 
one suggesting that H.R. 2213 will extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. 
This is simply not the case.
  First of all, dairy compacts are not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Agriculture and, therefore, are not germane to any 
legislation that our committee would report. Second, there are simply 
no dairy provisions of any kind in H.R. 2213, as amended.
  When I introduced the bill originally, it did include a simple 
extension of the dairy price support program due to expire at the end 
of this year, but even that provision has been removed from the amended 
version.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I, too, wished we could 
do more. At the outset, let me recognize the work of the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Combest) and state for the record that I agree with him 
that American agriculture is in need of immediate assistance, and that 
producers of our food and fiber are at risk.
  Last year crop prices were at a 27-year low for soybeans, a 25-year 
low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn and an 8-year low for 
rice. Very little recovery has occurred since that time. The need for 
the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this bill is so great that a 
doubling of this amount could easily be utilized.
  Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc 
assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider 
it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term.
  While the budget should provide us the authority to improve our 
commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made 
available in the budget will soon appear insufficient. First, aside 
from amounts in the bill before us, the budget provides $73.4 billion 
to add to our baseline over 10 years. During the course of the 
Committee on Agriculture's hearings, however, representatives of 
agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount.
  Second, the budget is not ironclad. The Committee on Agriculture has 
a budget allocation for fiscal year 2002, but not for the succeeding 
fiscal years. The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent 
that the on-budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our 
ability to address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive 
to any deterioration in the overall budget surplus.
  The reality of the tight budget situation we faced was recently made 
abundantly clear by a letter from the administration. Prior to the 
markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that, if 
the committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend the 
President not sign the bill.
  A bare majority of my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture 
agreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and me that we needed 
to save every penny we could to draft a responsible long-term farm 
bill.
  I am proud to say that, by adopting our amendment, the Committee on 
Agriculture has faced its responsibility to prioritize agriculture's 
needs within the budget. Our chairman presided over a full debate with 
the utmost fairness. For those of us who were strong advocates for 
agriculture, we arrived at a difficult decision.
  The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our 
producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm 
economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear

[[Page 11902]]

way. Take the aid provided for the most recent crop and prorate the 
payments to equal $5.5 billion. I repeat, assistance is provided in a 
very clear way. Take the aid provided in the most recent crop and 
prorate the payments to equal $5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to 
producers quickly and simply.
  While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this 
assistance, we are constrained in this manner because the assistance 
must be provided by September 30.
  We also need to analyze all fiscal year 2002 options at the same time 
in order to provide the right long- and short-term policy mix. Many 
specialty crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in 
the bill can only be assisted in fiscal year 2002 money. We can provide 
such assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in 
keeping with our long-term strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that the $5.5 
billion is inadequate; however, this is all we can afford at the 
moment. As we pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move 
toward an improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers 
and taxpayers alike.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I wish we could do more.
  At the outset, let me recognize the work of Chairman Combest and 
state for the record that I agree with him that American agriculture is 
in need of immediate assistance and that the producers of our food and 
fiber are at risk. Last year, crop prices were at a 27-year low for 
soybeans, a 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn 
and an 8-year low for rice. Very little recovery has occurred since 
that time. The need for the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this 
bill is so great that a doubling of this amount could easily be 
utilized.
  Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc 
assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider 
it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term.
  While the Budget should provide us the authority to improve our 
commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made 
available will soon appear insufficient:
  First, aside from amounts in the bill before us, the Budget provides 
$73.4 billion to add to our baseline over ten years. During the course 
of the Agriculture Committee's hearings, however, representatives of 
agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount.
  Second, the Budget is not ironclad. The Agriculture Committee has a 
budget allocation for FY 2002 but not for the succeeding fiscal years. 
The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent that the on-
budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our ability to 
address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive to ANY 
deterioration in the overall budget surplus.
  The reality of the tight budget situation we face was recently made 
abundantly clear by a letter from the Administration. Prior to the 
markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that if 
the Committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend that the 
President not sign the bill.
  A bare majority of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee agreed 
with Mr. Boehner and me that we needed to save every penny we could to 
draft a responsible long-term farm bill. I am proud to say that by 
adopting our amendment, the Agriculture Committee has faced its 
responsibility to prioritize agriculture's needs within the budget. Our 
Chairman presided over a full debate with the utmost fairness and, for 
those of us who are strong advocates for agriculture we arrived at a 
difficult result.
  The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our 
producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm 
economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear way: take the aid 
provided for the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal 
$5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to producers quickly and simply. 
While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this 
assistance, we are constrained to this manner because the assistance 
must be provided by September 30.
  We also need to analyze all FY 2002 options at the same time in order 
to provide the right long and short-term policy mix. Many specialty 
crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in the bill 
can only be assisted with FY 2002 money. We can provide such 
assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in keeping 
with our long-term strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that $5.5 billion 
is inadequate, however this is all we can afford at the moment. As we 
pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move toward an 
improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers and 
taxpayers alike.
  I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2213, the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Economic Assistance Act. It provides $5.5 billion in 
markets loss payments and other agriculture assistance.
  I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget was able to work hand 
in hand with the Committee on Agriculture to make this bill possible.
  Recognizing the needs of farmers, the Committee on Budget reported 
and the House passed a budget resolution that revised the allocations 
and budgetary totals for the current fiscal year to accommodate $5.5 
billion in additional emergency agricultural assistance for the crop 
year of 2001. We budgeted for this emergency. This fits within the 
budget. It is responsible.
  All the Committee on the Budget asked was that the Committee on 
Agriculture produce a straightforward bill that avoided accounting 
gimmicks and reserved sufficient funds to meet future crop year needs 
and permanently reform agricultural assistance programs so we can move 
away from this Band-Aid approach of the past 3 years. H.R. 2213 more 
than up holds the Committee on Agriculture's part of this bargain.
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I have the privilege 
of reporting to my colleagues that this bill is within the budget. I 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), the gentleman from 
Georgia (Chairman Chambliss), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
ranking member, for their hard work on this and all the members of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
allowing me to speak on this bill.
  I know it has been hard for the members of the Committee on 
Agriculture, but I am personally disappointed that there appears to be 
no funding for the conservation programs in the agricultural 
supplemental. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that it 
appears that the Committee on Appropriations plans to sharply reduce 
funding for our major conservation program in the next fiscal year, 
including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program and Farmland Protection Program.
  Only 5 percent of the USDA funding rewards voluntary efforts for 
protecting our drinking water supplies, to provide habitat for 
wildlife, protect open spaces.
  There are many programs where farmers voluntarily want to come 
forward, but as a result of declining funding levels for conservation 
programs, three out of four farmers, ranchers and foresters are 
rejected when they seek cost-sharing to improve the quality of our 
drinking water supplies; 9 out of 10 are rejected when they offer to 
sell development rights to help combat sprawl and protect farmland; 
half of our farmers and ranchers and foresters are rejected when they 
seek basic technical assistance. Sadly, we are not stepping forward to 
help the incredibly productive farmland that surrounds our metropolitan 
area, the urban-influenced farmland.
  Mr. Speaker, as we struggle with declining amounts of money because 
of some decisions that we have made, that, frankly, I think some of us 
are hoping that people recognize were inappropriate, we need to make 
sure that we are dealing with efforts to equip and ensure that we 
maintain the agricultural base.
  This is an opportunity for a win-win to protect the environment, to 
enhance the vast majority of small farmers that are at risk, and to 
make sure that we

[[Page 11903]]

are preserving water quality supplies. I am hopeful that we can do 
better in the future.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity 
to speak today, and I thank him for his leadership on this and other 
matters relative to the agriculture community in our country.
  I rise in strong support of this bill. I would say to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) I share the same concerns that he does 
about conservation, and I hope we can address that to a greater extent 
in the farm bill.
  But what we are doing today is coming forward with a market 
assistance package, and I emphasize that because it is not a disaster 
bill. A market assistance package is necessary for our farmers because, 
for the fourth year in a row, we are facing low commodity prices all 
across the spectrum.
  This bill is responsible. It addresses the needs of producers. It 
puts an amount of money in the pocket of producers as quickly as we can 
do it. Our folks need that relief now. At the same time, if the 
American people are going to be assured that they are going to continue 
to have quality food products at low-commodity prices, we need to pass 
this bill today.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, but I also want to 
express some disappointment with the lack of any type of funding for 
conservation programs within this farm supplemental bill for 2001.
  While there is no doubt that our Nation's farmers, ranchers and 
foresters are struggling financially, this measure merely continues the 
failed economic policies of the current farm bill, directs cash 
transfers that many of us believe distort the marketplace and drives 
commodity prices even further down.
  The next farm bill, which the House is currently considering, must be 
more inclusive and provide creative new revenue streams to assist our 
Nation's family farmers. It is my hope that voluntary incentive-based 
conservation programs which provide landowners with much-needed revenue 
while also assisting them in meeting soil, air and water environmental 
compliance is a part of the new farm bill.
  For instance, programs such as Wetlands Reserve, Wildlife Habitat 
Incentive Programs and the Farmland Protection Program not only help 
our farmers to promote preservation of open space, habitat for wildlife 
and improve water quality, but they also increase farm profitability.
  Two-thirds of America's farmers do not benefit from any traditional 
income support programs under the current farm bill. Furthermore, more 
than 90 percent of USDA payments go to only one-third of America's 
farmers who produce commodity crops. For example, States such as 
California and Florida receive less than 3 cents from USDA for every 
dollar they earn. Conservation payments provide an important source of 
funding that allows farmers throughout all regions of the country to 
retain their land while providing benefits to society, including 
cleaner drinking water and improved recreational opportunities.
  Currently, funding levels are insufficient to meet the demands of 
conservation programs. Three out of every four farmers, ranchers and 
private forest landowners are turned away when they seek to participate 
and help protect habitat and improve the quality of drinking water 
supplies through these land conservation programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the conservation funding aspect becomes a major 
feature of the next farm bill. I look forward to working with the 
leadership on that.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is Montana's number one 
industry, but with the cost of farm production at an all-time high and 
farm incomes sagging, I am deeply concerned about agriculture's future 
in our State.
  H.R. 2213 will provide much-needed help to Montana producers, but the 
bill fails in many ways. The assistance level provided for in this 
legislation is not sufficient to address needs of many families this 
year.
  H.R. 2213 fails to address the needs of dairy farmers, sugarcane 
growers, those who graze their wheat, barley, and oats, as well as 
producers who are denied marketing loan assistance because they do not 
have an AMTA contract.
  Members who supported the $5.5 billion in assistance at the committee 
level argued that a cut in funds to producers this year was necessary 
to save funds for the new farm bill, but I fear that many producers in 
my State will now have to face the reality that they may not make it 
for the next farm bill.
  While this bill is far from perfect, it is a first step in keeping 
Congress' commitment to stand by American farmers and ranchers until a 
permanent safety net is in place.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the 
staff for all their hard work on behalf of America's rural communities.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, dramatic increases in energy costs have hurt 
everybody, especially in the agriculture industry. Today, right now, 
farmers in my district, a lot of them, are going bankrupt, clearly not 
able to keep up with their energy bills.
  We need to encourage more domestic production of oil and gas, but 
that is for the future. We will not solve the crisis of today.
  I am not really not here to point fingers, assign blame for 
skyrocketing energy prices, but I am here on behalf of family farmers 
who do seek solutions. They need our help now.
  Despite repeated appeals from my colleagues and myself, this 
Congress, this leadership has ignored the plight of ordinary citizens 
who are suffering this energy crisis. Let us face the fact that some 
farmers and ranchers have seen their gas bills double and triple over 
the last year, and this is through no fault of their own.
  Our economy depends on agriculture, and especially Mississippi, 
because we are still a rural economy.
  This may not be a natural disaster like a tornado or flood, but it is 
a disaster just the same. It is an economic disaster that threatens the 
very existence of our farmers.
  If we cannot see fit to address these needs through supplemental 
funding, I challenge the Congress to take up the issue separately.

                              {time}  1200

  I have introduced H.R. 478, the Family Farmers' Emergency Energy 
Assistance Act, which will provide immediate and long-term emergency 
assistance to our farmers and ranchers, including crop and greenhouse 
growers and poultry and livestock producers.
  H.R. 478 will authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
grants to help farmers and ranchers to deal immediately with financial 
pressures caused by this crisis. This bill would also make low-interest 
loans available to help deal with the energy crisis for the months 
ahead.
  H.R. 478 defines what constitutes an ``energy emergency'' and lays 
out a formula that will work. H.R. 478 is a farm energy crisis bill 
that will ensure that agriculture producers suffering an energy crisis 
will get assistance.
  I am calling upon our leaders in Congress to move this emergency 
assistance bill quickly to passage. In a world where reliable energy 
costs are tantamount to success or failure, we should remember the pain 
rural America is enduring while we stand here and debate.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the 
farmers of my home State of Mississippi and for this legislation.

[[Page 11904]]

  Could we do more? Yes. Should we do more? I hope by the end of the 
day, by the time this Senate takes this up and it goes to the 
President, that there will be more. In terms of real dollars, 
Mississippi farmers are facing their 4th year of prices that have not 
been this low since the Great Depression.
  I look forward to working with the committee and the chairman to look 
at ways in the farm bill that we can have long-term solutions to crises 
that come up, not only in our commodities and crops, but for farmers 
who are in other areas, such as poultry. We need to find ways so that 
if we do have an energy crisis or spike that we can meet those needs, 
whether through grants or loans, so that they too can manage their farm 
income in a way that is predictable and gives them certainty. We need 
to help our farmers avoid the bankruptcies that we are seeing today in 
places across my district and in the Southeast.
  As we continue to get the emergency assistance and the long-term 
care, I look forward to working, as chairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus Waterfowl Task Force, in getting the conservation 
titles of the farm bill in order for the good it does both for our 
environment and for our farmers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the 
chairman of the committee for this supplemental, which goes a long way 
to preserving the rural legacy of this United States, understanding the 
fact that every year we lose hundreds of farms all across the Nation. 
This injection of dollars will go a long way into helping make our 
farms sustainable and, to a large extent, if we work the right way, 
making those farms profitable.
  I would also ask the Chairman, as we move through the rest of this 
session, to understand that not only do the AMTA payments make a 
difference, but the conservation title of the farm bill goes a long way 
into diversifying a great deal of what happens in our ag communities.
  In our ag communities, there is literally an ag corridor; and we need 
to keep it from being fragmented. In our ag communities, there is also 
a habitat conservation corridor for wildlife upon which many farmers 
depend on diversifying their ag businesses. Whether it is hunting or 
fishing, the conservation title goes a long way into preserving the 
rural legacy of this country.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
agricultural assistance package, but I must state flatly for the record 
that I was extremely disappointed last week when this much-needed 
package was reduced from $6.5 billion to $5.5 billion in committee. A 
majority of the Committee on Agriculture chose not to support me or the 
chairman in a package that was equal to last year's assistance. This 
billion dollar cut will cost Oklahoma producers 10 cents a bushel for 
wheat and effectively kills the LDP graze-out program for 2002. That is 
unacceptable.
  This is the worst time to be cutting funding for agricultural 
producers. Commodity prices remain low, input prices are increasing and 
continue to increase dramatically. If anything, we should be increasing 
our funding for these programs. Yes, this assistance package is a good 
first step. It is insufficient to meet the needs of agricultural 
producers, especially in Oklahoma, but at least it is headed in the 
right direction.
  I want to assure my friends and colleagues here on the floor that 
while I think this will help producers across the country, and 
particularly in Oklahoma too, that I intend to work with the other body 
to ensure that the cuts made last week by the Stenholm-Boehner 
amendment are restored and that we provide our producers with that 
minimum $6.5 billion.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to support this bill but to express 
my disappointment that the House Committee on Agriculture voted last 
week to reduce the supplemental aid to farmers in the supplemental farm 
package last week. I opposed the amendment by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) to reduce the supplemental aid to $5.5 billion and 
supported the chairman's proposal to provide $6.5 billion in support; 
the same level as in prior years.
  Our farmers are struggling, and we must provide them with the aid 
they need. This funding bill is better than no assistance, but we 
really needed that additional billion dollars to help our farmers. I 
consider this a first step towards ensuring that we provide our farmers 
the support they need.
  We continue to wrestle with historically low prices, and yet this 
year, in our part of the country, we are having very poor planting 
conditions and are expecting to have lower yields than in prior years. 
So we need more aid to maintain the same level as prior years, not 
less. Now is certainly not the time to cut it, particularly with energy 
costs driving up the cost of fertilizer and everything else.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to help the chairman and other committee 
members in an effort to restore funding as the process moves forward.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today for eighth district farmers in North Carolina to 
support H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act. I want 
to thank the chairman for his continued leadership and diligence in 
bringing assistance to our Nation's farmers who are in need.
  I am supportive of this bill, though I support the $6.5 even more; 
and I hope it will bring some relief to our farmers plagued by low 
commodity prices, rising energy costs, drought, and a slow world 
economy. USDA estimates that without government assistance, farmers' 
income could drop to historical lows, so it is imperative we act now.
  H.R. 2213 does not provide the same level of assistance as previous 
years but I urge my colleagues' support and it is my sincere hope that 
we can provide more adequate assistance as we move through the 
legislative process.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to thank him for his hard work and leadership in 
speeding this crop assistance package to the floor today. Family 
farmers across Indiana appreciate the gentleman's aggressiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, by providing $5.5 billion in economic assistance, this 
farm bill represents a much-needed first step in keeping Congress' 
promise to America's farmers and ranchers, but it is only a first step.
  It is said that the sower sows in expectation, and this farm bill 
fails to meet the expectation of American farmers in at least two 
respects. First, the assistance level it provides is not sufficient to 
address the total needs of farmers and ranchers; and, second, the 
bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely unaddressed.
  At a time when real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest 
level since the Great Depression, it is not time to cut supplemental 
aid to farmers. Although I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a 
first step toward helping our Nation's farmers, I am deeply 
disappointed that this bill leaves out $1 billion in farm aid for only 
a few short-term benefits.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for continuing to move this process along.

[[Page 11905]]

  We all know that we have great difficulty in ag country. We have low 
commodity prices, we have higher fuel costs, and the pressure is on 
farmers across the country and has been. Until we open more markets for 
our farmers, this pressure will continue to be there because our 
farmers continue to out-produce their competitors around the world.
  There has been a lot said here about the size of this package. As the 
author of the amendment, along with my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I believe that the $5.5 billion, as allocated by 
the budget, is a sufficient amount of money for aid now. Would I like 
to do more? Of course, I would like to do more. But the fact is we just 
went through a budget process and allocated $5.5 billion for this 
year's emergency assistance to farmers. To go back on that now opens 
the door to the other body to raise the number even higher. I think 
what we have done here is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
  Secondly, we are about to go through the new farm bill. We are going 
to have a major debate about how to reallocate those resources 
dedicated in the budget to the new farm bill. Let us not stick our 
fingers into the pie and take some of next year's money for this year's 
problems.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture is in a 
predicament. Should we go to the free market system and say survival of 
the fittest in an international market and price for food and fiber?
  It is complicated by a couple of situations. One is the fact that 
other countries, such as Europe, subsidize their farmers up to five 
times as much as we subsidize our farmers.
  How interested are we in maintaining a vital agricultural economy in 
the United States? I would suggest to my colleagues that that ability 
to produce food is even more important than the production of energy 
for our national security. With our dependency on imported energy, we 
have seen what can happen when OPEC decides to hold back. Think what 
might happen with food.
  Right now, farmers are faced with low commodity prices. A 27-year low 
for soybeans, 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn, 
an 8-year low for rice. Over the past 3 years, net cash income fell in 
real dollars to its lowest point since the depression.
  Now is the time that we have to make the decision of standing up for 
the survival of American agriculture. I would just suggest that farmers 
need help to survive. In addition to low commodity prices we have seen 
increased fuel costs of $2.4 billion over the last year because of 
higher energy prices.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time. It is with concern today that I rise on the House floor. 
This is an important piece of legislation. We have worked hard at 
making certain that the farmers of Kansas and across the country have 
access to additional resources this year to tide them over; and yet the 
actions of our House Committee on Agriculture last week, I think, are 
inadequate in reaching that goal.
  I voted against the passage of this bill from the committee, and yet 
I know it is important for the process to continue. We have hope that 
additional dollars will be placed in this legislation before this bill 
returns from the Senate.
  Two weeks ago I spoke on the House floor about the difficulties 
facing farmers in my State. I talked about corn prices at $1.89 and 
gasoline at $1.93. That does not work. Combines and custom cutters are 
working their way across Kansas now. Wheat prices dropped 25 cents last 
month; and when I looked at the board this morning, in Dodge City wheat 
was $2.71, down another 4 cents.
  Assistance today is important. Many of my farmers will not be able to 
wait around and see what happens with the farm bill and the 
improvements that we hope to make in agricultural policy in this 
Congress unless they have some dollars to tide them over now. The 
crisis is real, and the consequences of our failure to act are 
significant.
  I joined the chairman in supporting an increase for assistance for 
farmers. Our position failed by one vote, 24 to 23. So even within the 
House Committee on Agriculture, there is disagreement in the best way 
to help producers. However, I think now is not the time to hold up this 
bill over our previous disagreements. It is time for those of us 
concerned about agriculture and rural America to come together and to 
work on behalf of our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
  I look forward to that process continuing, and I look forward to 
working with my chairman and the ranking member to see that good things 
happen in Kansas and American agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time; and really for the benefit of some of my colleagues who are not 
from farm country, I thought I would like to take a minute today to 
talk about what is happening to agriculture here in the United States 
and around the world. Because it is easy for some people to say the 
problem is the farm bill, the problem is freedom to farm.
  It may well be true that some of the problems we face in agriculture 
today were exacerbated by the last farm bill. But the truth of the 
matter is what we are into now is the 4th consecutive year of worldwide 
record production.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, I think against that backdrop with any farm policy in 
the United States, our farmers would be facing a tough year as it 
relates to our commodities.
  The second thing we have to appreciate, in Europe we see huge 
subsidies for agriculture. Beyond that, we have permitted, we have 
allowed our trading competitors to subsidize their exports to the tune 
of $6 billion while we limit ourselves to $200 million. We have put 
ourselves and our farmers behind the eight ball relative to our trade 
policy and relative to our agriculture policy. Ultimately that is all 
coming together.
  There is a desperate need in agriculture today for some kind of help. 
We are here today, and the Committee on the Budget has responded 
appropriately. The bill in front of us today is the right answer. 
Ultimately there will be negotiations between the House and Senate and 
the White House, and hopefully this can be plussed up. There are 
serious problems in agriculture, most of which are not controllable by 
our farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill, and I hope all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this 
legislation today.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I associate 
myself with all of the remarks saying we should do more; but I would 
also point out that this amount of money today is within the budget 
that was passed that we have agreed to live under this year. I think 
that is a significant point. And also, as the chairman pointed out in 
his opening remarks, time is of the essence.
  Mr. Speaker, we must have this bill to the President for his 
signature by August 1 if we are to have any hope of dealing with the 
multitude of problems that this bill is designed to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to pass this bill today and 
move the process forward, and encourage the other body to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas

[[Page 11906]]

(Mr. Stenholm) and appreciate the good working relationship that we 
have. Our committee works on behalf of American agriculture, I think, 
on a bipartisan basis as well as any committee in the Congress.
  It is vitally important, and I strongly urge my colleagues who have 
any reservation about the level of this funding to move forward with 
this suspension to allow the House to have completed its action so that 
we make for certain that the $5.5 billion which was established in the 
budget resolution is in fact eligible to be paid to farmers by the end 
of the fiscal year of September 30. I think it also sends a message to 
farmers that in fact there is some assistance on the way at a very 
critically needed time.
  Mr. Speaker, to the Members who spoke of the committee's action in 
the next few weeks in reporting a farm bill, I will say that we have 
heard them and all others. This will be a comprehensive farm bill. It 
will have a strong conservation title, as some have indicated is 
needed. It is an area that we are looking at very carefully. It is 
something that we will be trying to craft to deal with all aspects of 
American agriculture, and we will be spending a great deal of time on 
it. It is the intent of our committee to report a bill by the beginning 
of the August recess so that consideration for a full farm bill in a 
much-needed sector of the American economy that is suffering 
tremendously can be moved forward; and that we will be able to send a 
message to American agriculture that there is help on the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest, the intensity, and passion of 
all of my colleagues on the committee.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2213 will provide the much needed help 
that my farmers in the Second Congressional District need today. The 
$5.5 billion is not sufficient to address all the farming needs, but it 
goes a long way in helping our family farmers. Input costs have 
skyrocketed for every one including our farming community. I hope this 
supplemental bill moves quickly to help alleviate some of these costs.
  I am happy with the way our peanut farmers concerns have been 
addressed in this bill, $25.83 a ton for quota peanuts and $13.55 for 
additional peanuts will help ease the burden that our peanut farmers 
face today.
  I am glad that we continue as we should standby our American farmers. 
This will provide immediate relief while our Committee continues to 
work hard on drafting the new Farm bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2213 and speedily get these 
funds to our farmers.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2213, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________