[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21048-21050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               TREATMENT OF FARMS WITH LIMITED BASE ACRES

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 6849) to amend the commodity provisions of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to permit producers to aggregate 
base acres and reconstitute farms to avoid the prohibition on receiving 
direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, or average crop revenue 
election payments when the sum of the base acres of a farm is 10 acres 
or less, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6849

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF FARMS WITH LIMITED BASE ACRES.

       (a) Suspension of Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1101(d) of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711(d)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Suspension of prohibition.--Paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) shall not apply during the 2008 and 2009 crop years.''.
       (2) Peanuts.--Section 1302(d) of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8752(d)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Suspension of prohibition.--Paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) shall not apply during the 2008 and 2009 crop years.''.
       (b) Extension of 2008 Signup for Direct Payments and 
     Counter-Cyclical Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106 of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8716) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Extension of 2008 Signup.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall extend the 2008 crop year deadline 
     for the signup for benefits under this subtitle by producers 
     on a farm with base acres of 10 acres or less until the later 
     of--
       ``(A) November 14, 2008; or
       ``(B) the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Penalties.--The Secretary shall ensure that no 
     penalty with respect to benefits under this subtitle is 
     assessed against producers on a farm described in paragraph 
     (1) for failure to submit reports under this section or 
     timely comply with other program requirements as a result of 
     compliance with the extended signup deadline under that 
     paragraph.''.
       (2) Peanuts.--Section 1305 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8755) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) Extension of 2008 Signup.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall extend the 2008 crop year deadline 
     for the signup for benefits under this subtitle by producers 
     on a farm with base acres of 10 acres or less until the later 
     of--
       ``(A) November 14, 2008; or
       ``(B) the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Penalties.--The Secretary shall ensure that no 
     penalty with respect to benefits under this subtitle is 
     assessed against producers on a farm described in paragraph 
     (1) for failure to submit reports under this section or 
     timely comply with other program requirements as a result of 
     compliance with the extended signup deadline under that 
     paragraph.''.
       (c) Offsetting Reduction.--Section 515(k)(1) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1515(k)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``not more than $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2011'' and inserting ``not more than $15,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2008, not more than $9,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2009, and not more than $8,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2010 and 2011''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6849.
  Let me also thank Chairman Peterson, chairman of the full committee, 
and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their hard work and effort in making 
sure that we got a quick markup on this bill in committee and got it to 
the floor.
  I introduced this legislation with my good friend and colleague, 
Representative Jerry Moran, to help thousands of American farmers who 
would have been adversely affected by really the willful 
misinterpretation in the 2008 farm bill by the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Madam Speaker, the Department has interpreted the language in the 
2008 farm bill in a manner that would prevent thousands of small 
farmers from receiving the program payments they are owed, putting them 
in jeopardy, in some cases, of financial hardship and some might even 
have to go out of business.
  This is based on its misinterpretation of a provision in title I of 
the farm bill that was meant to prevent payments to those farms that 
are 10 acres or less. Despite clear report language outlining how USDA 
is to implement this provision, the Secretary has chosen not to read it 
as written.

[[Page 21049]]

  I personally, along with a number of my colleagues, opposed the 10-
acre provision in the farm bill when it was debated in the committee 
and again during conference, because we should not punish small farmers 
in America. But I understand the provision's intent: to prevent people 
who are not active farmers from gaming the system and getting 
government payments on land they didn't actively farm. I think that's 
appropriate.
  However, I cannot abide by the interpretation that puts thousands of 
farmers who rent or lease small tracts of land for their farming 
operations and place them at risk of not receiving payments and could, 
in some cases, put them in jeopardy of being out of business, an 
interpretation that puts existing contracts between landowners and 
farmers at risk of being voided.
  Let me just share with you what this means. In the State of Iowa, 
roughly 12,000 farms are affected; in Illinois, approximately 16,000 
farms would be affected; in Ohio, 16,000 farms; in Kentucky, 20,000 
farms; and in my home State of North Carolina, almost 16,000 farms 
would be adversely impacted if Congress let's the department rule 
stand. Nationwide, this number could be as high as 460,000 farms.
  H.R. 6849 fixes this problem. It suspends the provisions in title I 
for the 2008-2009 crop years that would have required producers to have 
a minimum of a 10-acre base to receive program benefits. This provision 
provides time to consider a more permanent fix in the future.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I support H.R. 6849 which voids the payment prohibition to farmers 
who have fewer than 10 acres of working farmland for the 2008 and 2009 
crop years.

                              {time}  1715

  This measure protects farmers who would be denied benefits because it 
addresses a specific provision in the farm bill that the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture has misinterpreted. The intent of that 
original provision was to stop gardeners in New York City from getting 
program payments. It was never intended to prevent bonafide farmers 
from participating in commodity programs.
  The farm bill provision and the accompanying report encourage the 
Secretary of Agriculture to allow farmers to aggregate base acres from 
multiple working farms to qualify for those program benefits.
  However, the USDA has decided to interpret the language of that 
provision differently and prohibit aggregation. It is unfortunate that 
we are forced to pass further legislation to make sure this intent 
cannot be misconstrued. However, if we do not take action, the result 
will be damaging to thousands of farmers who depend on program 
payments.
  I believe it is necessary that we pass this bill in order to protect 
those thousands of farmers who are being adversely affected by the 
USDA's interpretation of a specific provision in the farm bill. This is 
a growing concern throughout the country. Specifically, in my State of 
Virginia, the Virginia Farm Bureau contacted me directly because it was 
worried about the negative impact this interpretation would have on the 
livelihood of its producers.
  I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who has worked hard on this and this 
has a significant impact on his State.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I want to 
thank my good friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) 
and Mr. Goodlatte and the rest of you for us coming together and 
correcting this error that's taken place, or this misrepresentation.
  As the cosponsor of H.R. 6849, I'm extremely pleased the full House 
has taken action today so that Iowa and the Nation's small working 
farmers across the Nation will have an opportunity for an adequate 
safety net. The legislation suspends a provision in the new farm bill 
which prohibits producers farming 10 acres or less to receive USDA 
payments.
  Now hear this. When the farm bill was drafted and during the 
conference process, it was the intent of Congress to allow farmers to 
aggregate their base acres, to bring them together. This is evident by 
the Joint Explanatory Statement of the managers that accompanied the 
2008 farm bill which clearly states, ``The managers intend for the 
department to allow for aggregation of farms for purposes of 
determining the suspension of payments on farms with 10 base acres or 
less.''
  This needs to be corrected. I ask that everybody that would 
participate to be sure we make this clear and make sure small farmers 
will be taken care of. The USDA has misrepresented Congress' intent 
putting thousands of small producers at risk.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the 
Commodity Subcommittee, such time as he may consume.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise 
in support of H.R. 6849.
  I certainly support the fundamental purpose of this bill. I do have 
some concerns about the offset, the pay-for, that is necessary. I am 
also concerned that the bill only provides temporary relief.
  As has been indicated, decisions were made in the farm bill to 
eliminate 10 acres from being considered for program payments under the 
new farm bill, and the attempt was made to make it clear that farmers 
could aggregate their properties. That has not been the case as the 
farm bill has been implemented by the Department of Agriculture, and we 
now are here to correct that mistake.
  Mr. Etheridge and I, the gentleman from North Carolina, introduced 
legislation to do that in September, and this is the base behind the 
bill that we have before us today, although our plan was to allow 
farmers to combine base acres through two processes: either 
reconstitution or aggregation.
  And when it became a concern that that bill would not pass in 
sufficient time and the offset was not there, the bill we have before 
us became the compromise; and I'm pleased knowing that this legislation 
must pass to be supportive of this compromise bill. It does mean that 
this Congress, the House Agriculture Committee, will need to come back 
in future years to make certain that we get this corrected.
  Also, by speaking today, I want to raise the concern that I have with 
the offset that we're using. For a long time I have worried that my 
farmers, when they go to see their USDA officers, particularly FSA, at 
their county office, they have had tremendous delays in access to 
computers. And the offset for this bill is computer/IT funding in the 
Risk Management Agency, RMA. In my opinion, we need to find a more 
appropriate offset because we authorized only $60 million in the farm 
bill, $15 million in each of the 4 fiscal years for the IT system at 
the Risk Management Agency, and those systems were only updated--the 
last time was 15 years ago.
  This would remove nearly $20 million from the original $60 million 
authorized in the farm bill, removing about a third of the money 
allocated for computer upgrades.
  And so we have an opportunity, I hope, when the Senate passes similar 
legislation to sit down and see if we can't agree upon a different way 
of paying for this needed correction.
  Without sufficient funding, the Risk Management Agency will be forced 
to limit future product approvals, enhancements, and expansions, and I 
believe that will adversely affect farmers and ranchers. RMA must be 
able to interface with 17 insurance companies that deliver Federal crop 
insurance covering more than 1.1 million policies and $89 billion in 
liability.
  Upgrades are not only needed to allow services to continue but are 
also

[[Page 21050]]

necessary to implement current technology to improve program integrity 
and data security and the protection of personally identifiable 
information.
  Again, I raise the concern and hope that as this bill works its way 
through the process, that we can find a more satisfactory offset than 
the information technology, the RMA IT account, at the Department of 
Agriculture.
  I am here to support this legislation. I appreciate the fix that it 
provides. We need to figure out a permanent solution, and we need to 
figure out a different way of paying for it. I look forward to 
continuing to working in the process to see that those two things 
occur.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) who has also been instrumental in this 
piece of legislation and works hard on the Ag Committee.
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the 
gentleman for his leadership as well as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran) and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, and Chairman Peterson.
  This is a pretty timely debate, Madam Speaker. I just came from a 
meeting with Deputy Secretary Conner about this very issue. The deputy 
secretary said that he would like to be helpful and Secretary Schaeffer 
would like to be helpful. They're just having difficulty struggling 
with the legal interpretation of what ``congressional intent'' was.
  So it's very important that we pass this legislation today by as 
strong a vote as possible. The deputy secretary promised to go back and 
look and see if there's a way they can interpret it for what I told him 
that was my understanding of what congressional intent was.
  I remember that evening in conference when the gentleman from North 
Carolina offered an amendment and a discussion came about. It was 
pretty clear to me, and I think everyone else in the room, that it was 
the intent of the conference to have this be in the aggregate. We're 
still having difficulty working with the department, as I mentioned. 
They just promised me 10 minutes ago to continue to work on it.
  But I think one way that we can send a clear message is to pass this 
bill tonight by as overwhelming a vote as we possibly can and send it 
over to the Senate.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, I would 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and yield back.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Virginia for his help, Ranking Member 
Goodlatte, Chairman Peterson, and all the members of the committee, and 
also my good friend, Congressman Moran from Kansas, who really was 
instrumental in working on this piece of legislation.
  Let me just say to my colleagues, every State in America is affected 
by this piece of legislation from an agricultural standpoint. With 
that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 6849 and on behalf of Michigan's farmers and agricultural 
community.
  When thinking of Michigan, most people automatically think of the 
automobile industry. However, many people don't realize that 
agriculture is the second largest industry in the state and in many 
ways defines us, our culture and our values.
  Michigan's agriculture industry is made up of small and medium sized 
farms. However, the family farmer is alive and well in my district. And 
that is why this bill is so critical to Michigan producers and the rest 
of the country.
  This legislation waives the 10 acre provision for farm program 
eligibility for the 2008 and 2009 crop years. This provision, which was 
included in the Farm Bill, prevents farmers with less than 10 base 
acres from receiving a program crop payment such as Direct, Counter-
Cyclical, or ACRE payments.
  There are many producers which are prohibited from receiving the 
benefits of the Farm Bill because of this provision. It is my sincere 
belief that farmers that work multiple plots of less than 10 acres were 
never intended to be denied access to this program. This legislation 
today will force the USDA to recognize that fact. I am proud to stand 
in support of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor 
of this measure.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 6849, which will prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 
denying farm program benefits to farmers who have several small plots 
of land that are eligible for commodity program payments.
  H.R. 6849 is a bipartisan bill that was introduced by my House 
Agriculture Committee colleagues, Representatives Bob Etheridge and 
Jerry Moran, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the 
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee. An amended 
version of the bill passed the Committee by voice vote last week.
  On June 30 of this year, about a month after Congress overrode the 
President's veto on the Farm Bill, the US Department of Agriculture 
published a notice stating their intent to ``not approve requests for 
farm combination reconstitutions of farms having base acres of 10 acres 
or less.''
  The Department's notice is a substantial change from what was in 
place prior to the 2008 Farm Bill and runs contrary to what was 
intended by House and Senate conferees who wrote the provision. The 
manager's report states that small base acreages could be aggregated to 
allow for farm program eligibility if the sum of the acres is over 10.
  The USDA's decision to eliminate such a large number of base acres 
could affect hundreds of thousands of producers all across this 
country.
  Their selective interpretation of the Farm Bill is doing no favors 
for America's farmers and ranchers, who are rightly concerned that the 
Department is ignoring the Congress's clearly stated intent.
  Madam Speaker, in recognition of the difficulties in paying for this 
fix over a ten year period, the Committee amended the bill to 
temporarily solve this problem by suspending the 10 base acre provision 
for two years. This temporary, less expensive solution is fully offset 
in order to meet Congressional Paygo requirements.
  With passage of this bill today, Madam Speaker, it is my hope that we 
can make clear to farm country that the Farm Bill will be implemented 
as Congress intended.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6849.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6849, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________