Home > Documents > October 3, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE H6167 · 10/3/2001  · RECORD before October 3, 2001,...

October 3, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE H6167 · 10/3/2001  · RECORD before October 3, 2001,...

Date post: 28-Sep-2020
Category:
Author: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Embed Size (px)
of 71 /71
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6167 October 3, 2001 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this great and powerful Nation of ours is about to respond. We will respond mightily. We will respond, not just against the ter- rorists themselves, but against those who harbor and protect them. b 1015 The Taliban of Afghanistan is at the very top of the list. As we prepare to deal with them, we have to remember the civilians of that country. We must be careful to minimize the impact on the innocent people of Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. I know that sometimes innocent people die in war, but in the case of Afghanistan, perhaps more than any other, we will be at war with the terrorist organiza- tions and with the government that aids and abets them, not with the peo- ple. The people of Afghanistan are vic- tims too. They have been brutalized by the Taliban, by the communists who were there before them. They have not known peace for decades. Millions have starved and become refugees. We will need to help those surrounding coun- tries that will be impacted by the refu- gees. We need to communicate to the people of Afghanistan, reach out to them and let them know that we are their friends, and that once Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are gone, and they will be gone, we want to be a friend and ally to the people of Afghan- istan. f FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- lution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: H. RES. 248 Resolved, That at any time after the adop- tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur- suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2646) to pro- vide for the continuation of agricultural pro- grams through fiscal year 2011. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on Agriculture and Inter- national Relations now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the na- ture of a substitute consisting of the text printed in part A of the report of the Com- mittee on Rules accompanying this resolu- tion, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amend- ment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed before October 3, 2001, in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Mem- ber who caused it to be printed or his des- ignee and shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and re- port the bill to the House with such amend- ments as may have been adopted. Any Mem- ber may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without in- structions. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LAHOOD). The gentleman from Wash- ington (Mr. HASTINGS) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of de- bate only. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 248 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. The rule provides two hours of general debate equally divided and con- trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule further provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the chairman of the Committee on Ag- riculture and the Committee on Inter- national Relations now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute consisting of the printed text in part A of the Committee on Rules re- port accompanying the resolution, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report. The rule waives all points of order against the amend- ment in the nature of a substitute and provides that it be shall be considered as read. The rule further makes in order only those amendments that have been preprinted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD before October 3, 2001, and pro- vides that each such amendment may be offered only by the amendment who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read. Fi- nally, the rules provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 provides $73.5 billion over the next 10 years to over- haul the 1996 farm bill. It reauthorizes a Food for Progress Program, which fi- nances food grants to developing coun- tries that are committed to democracy and free market system at $100 million per year through 2001. I am especially pleased that this bill reauthorizes the Market Access program, which helps producers, including many tree fruit growers in Central Washington, in my district, promote exports abroad and increases that funding by $110 million per year to $200 million annually. The MAP funds have proven to be an effective means of assisting producers not normally provided for the federal farm legislation. Cherries, apples, grapes, dry peas, hops and lentils are just a few of the commodities in my district that benefit from this impor- tant program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 is a balanced bill providing support for American ag- ricultural through commodity assist- ance, conservation programs, nutrition programs, enhanced international trade, rural development, forestry ini- tiatives, and a host of other important provisions. The bill was reported by the Com- mittee on Agriculture by a voice vote and is broadly supported by members of that Committee and our colleagues in the whole House. In order to permit Members seeking to improve the bill to the fullest extent possible, an oppor- tunity was given to offer amendments. The Committee on Rules is pleased to report the modified open rule requested by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agri- culture. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2646. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) for yielding me the time. This is a modified open rule. It will allow for the consideration of a bill which funds farm price supports, con- servation programs, domestic nutrition programs, and international food as- sistance over the next 10 years. As my colleague from Washington has described, this rule provides 2 hours of general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the normal amending process in the House. The rule requires that all amendments must be preprinted in the CONGRES- SIONAL RECORD. Mr. Speaker, there is no human need more basic than food. Ensuring that our citizens are fed is one of the most important duties of government. This bill establishes the basic framework of government support for farmers to maintain a stable, affordable source of good food for Americans. The bill also VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.005 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1
Transcript
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6167October 3, 2001minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

    Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this greatand powerful Nation of ours is about torespond. We will respond mightily. Wewill respond, not just against the ter-rorists themselves, but against thosewho harbor and protect them.

    b 1015

    The Taliban of Afghanistan is at thevery top of the list. As we prepare todeal with them, we have to rememberthe civilians of that country. We mustbe careful to minimize the impact onthe innocent people of Afghanistan.

    Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. I knowthat sometimes innocent people die inwar, but in the case of Afghanistan,perhaps more than any other, we willbe at war with the terrorist organiza-tions and with the government thataids and abets them, not with the peo-ple.

    The people of Afghanistan are vic-tims too. They have been brutalized bythe Taliban, by the communists whowere there before them. They have notknown peace for decades. Millions havestarved and become refugees. We willneed to help those surrounding coun-tries that will be impacted by the refu-gees. We need to communicate to thepeople of Afghanistan, reach out tothem and let them know that we aretheir friends, and that once Osama binLaden and the Taliban are gone, andthey will be gone, we want to be afriend and ally to the people of Afghan-istan.

    f

    FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, by direction of the Com-mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso-lution 248 and ask for its immediateconsideration.

    The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

    H. RES. 248

    Resolved, That at any time after the adop-tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2646) to pro-vide for the continuation of agricultural pro-grams through fiscal year 2011. The firstreading of the bill shall be dispensed with.All points of order against consideration ofthe bill are waived. General debate shall beconfined to the bill and shall not exceed twohours equally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minority member ofthe Committee on Agriculture. After generaldebate the bill shall be considered foramendment under the five-minute rule. Inlieu of the amendments recommended by theCommittees on Agriculture and Inter-national Relations now printed in the bill, itshall be in order to consider as an originalbill for the purpose of amendment under thefive-minute rule an amendment in the na-ture of a substitute consisting of the textprinted in part A of the report of the Com-mittee on Rules accompanying this resolu-tion, modified by the amendment printed inpart B of the report. That amendment in thenature of a substitute shall be considered asread. All points of order against that amend-

    ment in the nature of a substitute arewaived. No amendment to that amendmentin the nature of a substitute shall be in orderexcept those printed before October 3, 2001,in the portion of the Congressional Recorddesignated for that purpose in clause 8 ofrule XVIII and except pro forma amendmentsfor the purpose of debate. Each amendmentso printed may be offered only by the Mem-ber who caused it to be printed or his des-ignee and shall be considered as read. At theconclusion of consideration of the bill foramendment the Committee shall rise and re-port the bill to the House with such amend-ments as may have been adopted. Any Mem-ber may demand a separate vote in theHouse on any amendment adopted in theCommittee of the Whole to the bill or to theamendment in the nature of a substitutemade in order as original text. The previousquestion shall be considered as ordered onthe bill and amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motion exceptone motion to recommit with or without in-structions.

    The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.LAHOOD). The gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. HASTINGS) is recognized for1 hour.

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, for the purpose of debateonly, I yield the customary 30 minutesto the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.HALL), pending which I yield myselfsuch time as I may consume. Duringconsideration of this resolution, alltime yielded is for the purpose of de-bate only.

    (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, H. Res. 248 is a modified openrule providing for the consideration ofH.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of2001. The rule provides two hours ofgeneral debate equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee onAgriculture. The rule waives all pointsof order against consideration of thebill.

    The rule further provides that in lieuof the amendments recommended bythe chairman of the Committee on Ag-riculture and the Committee on Inter-national Relations now printed in thebill, it shall be in order to consider, asan original bill for the purpose ofamendment under the 5-minute rule,an amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute consisting of the printed text inpart A of the Committee on Rules re-port accompanying the resolution,modified by the amendment printed inpart B of the report. The rule waivesall points of order against the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute andprovides that it be shall be consideredas read.

    The rule further makes in order onlythose amendments that have beenpreprinted in the CONGRESSIONALRECORD before October 3, 2001, and pro-vides that each such amendment maybe offered only by the amendment whocaused it to be printed or a designeeand shall be considered as read. Fi-nally, the rules provides one motion torecommit with or without instructions.

    Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 provides $73.5billion over the next 10 years to over-

    haul the 1996 farm bill. It reauthorizesa Food for Progress Program, which fi-nances food grants to developing coun-tries that are committed to democracyand free market system at $100 millionper year through 2001. I am especiallypleased that this bill reauthorizes theMarket Access program, which helpsproducers, including many tree fruitgrowers in Central Washington, in mydistrict, promote exports abroad andincreases that funding by $110 millionper year to $200 million annually.

    The MAP funds have proven to be aneffective means of assisting producersnot normally provided for the federalfarm legislation. Cherries, apples,grapes, dry peas, hops and lentils arejust a few of the commodities in mydistrict that benefit from this impor-tant program.

    Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2646 is a balancedbill providing support for American ag-ricultural through commodity assist-ance, conservation programs, nutritionprograms, enhanced internationaltrade, rural development, forestry ini-tiatives, and a host of other importantprovisions.

    The bill was reported by the Com-mittee on Agriculture by a voice voteand is broadly supported by membersof that Committee and our colleaguesin the whole House. In order to permitMembers seeking to improve the bill tothe fullest extent possible, an oppor-tunity was given to offer amendments.The Committee on Rules is pleased toreport the modified open rule requestedby the chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Agri-culture.

    Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge mycolleagues to support both the rule andthe underlying bill, H.R. 2646.

    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank thegentleman from Washington (Mr.HASTINGS) for yielding me the time.

    This is a modified open rule. It willallow for the consideration of a billwhich funds farm price supports, con-servation programs, domestic nutritionprograms, and international food as-sistance over the next 10 years.

    As my colleague from Washingtonhas described, this rule provides 2hours of general debate to be equallydivided and controlled by the chairmanand ranking minority member of theCommittee on Agriculture.

    This allows germane amendmentsunder the 5-minute rule. This is thenormal amending process in the House.The rule requires that all amendmentsmust be preprinted in the CONGRES-SIONAL RECORD.

    Mr. Speaker, there is no human needmore basic than food. Ensuring thatour citizens are fed is one of the mostimportant duties of government. Thisbill establishes the basic framework ofgovernment support for farmers tomaintain a stable, affordable source ofgood food for Americans. The bill also

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.005 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH6168 October 3, 2001authorizes programs providing food forneedy people in the United States andaround the world.

    I want to thank the Committee onAgriculture, the gentleman from Texas(Chairman COMBEST) and his staff fortheir diligent work in putting togetherthis farm bill, as well as ranking mi-nority member, the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. STENHOLM). Members of thecommittee put a lot of energy and ef-fort into this bill, including attendingfield hearings around the country. Theresult is a fair process and a bipartisanbill with support on both sides of theaisle.

    The bill includes many compromises.The committee has done a good job instriking a balance between the dif-ferent interests represented in thiscountry and in this House.

    I am glad that the bill includes nec-essary improvements to the FoodStamp Program and the EmergencyFood Assistance Program, which is ourNation’s first line of defense againsthunger. These programs are especiallyimportant in times of increasing unem-ployment.

    Additionally, the legislation includesthe Bill Emerson-Mickey Leland Hun-ger Fellows Program, and this is a fit-ting tribute for our two late col-leagues, and it honors their legacy bytraining leaders in the fight againsthunger.

    Thanks to the gentleman from Texas(Chairman COMBEST) and the Com-mittee on International Relations, thegentleman from Illinois (ChairmanHYDE), the bill authorizes the GeorgeMcGovern-Robert Dole InternationalFood for Education and Child NutritionProgram, sometimes called the GlobalSchools Lunch program, and this willbe a vital weapon in our arsenal in theworldwide fight against ignorance anddisease.

    However, I am concerned about thepotential gap in funding between thecurrent Global School Lunch programand the authorized program createdunder this bill. Later, I am hoping toengage Chairman COMBEST in a col-loquy on this matter.

    I also plan to offer an uncontro-versial amendment which will givemore flexibility in the management ofthe Food for Peace program. This wasrequested by the U.S. AID and theWorld Food Programme.

    Mr. Speaker, our world has changedsince September 11, and it is necessaryto look at major legislation such asthis in light of our new security con-cerns, and among those concerns arethe hunger and the poverty and themisery around the world that, if ig-nored, can become breeding grounds forviolence and hatred.

    I have seen the effect of our food aidin dozens of countries, but nowheremore clearly than in North Korea. Fiveyears ago, people would run when theysaw Americans. That was before bagsof American grain began reachingschools and orphanages there, helpingto alleviate the crushing famine.

    Today, there are 15 million of thoseU.S. AID ‘‘handshake’’ bags being usedover and over, delivering the messagethat the American people are not theenemies of the Korean people, and thatmessage is getting through, and theevidence is the way ordinary North Ko-reans now break into smiles at thesight of Americans.

    As my colleagues know, I think weshould send a lot more food aid to themore than 800 million hungry people inour world, and we should do it becauseit saves their lives and gives themhope. We should do it because it helpsour farmers and instills goodwill to-wards Americans, and we should do itbecause we should not let terrible con-ditions fester and become even biggerproblems for our Nation.

    The food assistance programs author-ized by this bill give the President ad-ditional tools in showing our allies,new and old, that we are in a war withterrorists and not the downtroddenpeople of any Nation.

    Mr. Speaker, I support the rule onthe underlying bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minuteto the gentleman from Texas (Mr. COM-BEST), the distinguished chairman ofthe Committee on Agriculture.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding the time,and I just want to rise in support ofthis rule.

    I want to thank the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. HASTINGS), the gen-tleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) and oth-ers on the Committee on Rules for avery open process there in grantingthis rule.

    As mentioned, the rule does providethe opportunity for Members to offer awide variety of amendments. Some ofthose, I am sure, will create some ex-tended discussion. That is, however,part of the process.

    It is a good rule, and I particularlywould again like to thank the Com-mittee on Rules for granting the rulethat was requested by the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. STENHOLM) and my-self.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

    As I mentioned, I am pleased that theCommittee on Agriculture and theCommittee on International Relationshave included provisions in the billthat would establish what is commonlyknown as the Global School Lunch pro-gram. This exports some of the best wehave to offer, American food and com-passion to developing countries aroundthe world. The global food for edu-cation initiative currently operated bythe Agriculture Department has wor-thy goals of feeding hungry children,promoting education, especially amonggirls, and assisting American farmers.

    It was inspired by former SenatorsGeorge McGovern and Bob Dole. It wasannounced at the G–8 summit last

    July, and it has broad bipartisan sup-port. Authorization of the program isnow part of the farm bill due to the ex-emplary work of the gentleman fromTexas (Chairman COMBEST), the gen-tleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE)and the ranking minority members,the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STEN-HOLM) and the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. LANTOS).

    I am concerned, however, that thereis a possible gap between the end of theexisting funding and the beginning ofthe appropriated funding for this bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. COMBEST) forthe purpose of engaging in a colloquyabout this concern. I have also a notethat the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.HYDE) wanted to be here to discuss thismatter but is chairing an importanthearing on terrorism.

    So, is it the hope and understandingof the gentleman from Texas (Mr. COM-BEST) that the Secretary of Agricultureshould continue to operate the GlobalFood for Education initiative untilsuch time as the International Food forEducation and Child Nutrition Pro-gram is established?

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gen-tleman from Texas.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding and want toassure him that I support the provi-sions of the McGovern-Dole Inter-national Food for Education Programcontained in the bill in hopes that theyand the rest of the bill will be enactedquickly.

    b 1030

    I want to state that I agree that thecurrent program should be continuedso that there will not be a gap in theimportant work that is being done. Thegentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM)and I have requested that the GeneralAccounting Office review the currentGlobal Food for Education Initiative,and we expect that review to be com-pleted in a few months. I will be happyto work with the gentleman to exam-ine that GAO recommendation.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Reclaiming mytime, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate thegentleman’s assurances and hope wecan work together to ensure that therecommendations to improve the pro-gram will be implemented.

    Mr. COMBEST. If the gentleman willcontinue to yield, I would certainlyagree and again look forward to receiv-ing the report. While I am concernedthat this and any other new programachieve the goal set out for it, I sharethe concern of my colleague from Ohiothat the needs of hungry childrenshould not go unmet, especially whenthe United States is able to producefood in such abundance. I appreciatehis intent and look forward to workingwith him on this program in the fu-ture.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Reclaiming mytime once again, I want to thank the

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.009 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6169October 3, 2001chairman, and I also want to thank mycolleagues, the gentleman from Massa-chusetts (Mr. MCGOVERN) and the gen-tlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. EMER-SON), who have worked tirelessly onthis important piece of legislation.

    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I yield such time as he mayconsume to the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. DREIER), the distinguishedchairman of the Committee on Rules.

    (Mr. DREIER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

    Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy friend for yielding me this time.

    At the beginning of this Congress,the Speaker of the House, the gen-tleman from Illinois (Mr. HASTERT),said that he believed it important thaton most of the issues we face we pro-ceed under what he calls regular order,and that is exactly what we are doinghere. We have basically an openamendment process. We call this amodified open rule because it offersjust the slightest restriction, but underthe structure that we have, every ger-mane amendment will be able to bemade in order.

    I know there are some who have dem-onstrated some concern about that aswe proceed with consideration of thisfarm bill. I believe that it is the mostappropriate way for us to proceed. So Ihope that my colleagues, Mr. Speaker,will join in strong support of this ruleand allow us to move ahead with con-sideration of a wide range of issues.

    I know there are some issues thatthey would like to have brought upunder this structure that we have, butthat would have required a waiver. Wechose not to provide that waiver, andthere are other mechanisms that existin the institution where they will beable to address those concerns.

    So I would simply like to say that Iurge my colleagues to support thisrule, and I thank the gentleman fromWashington (Mr. HASTINGS) and thegentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) fortheir management of this effort. Weare going to proceed in a bipartisanway with what will be a free and rig-orous and interesting open debate onconsideration of the farm bill.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 4 minutes to the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. STENHOLM), who is theranking member on the Committee onAgriculture.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I riseto support the rule. As we have heard,it is essentially a fair rule; and I amgrateful to my chairman, the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. COMBEST), forrequesting such a fair rule. I hope theentire House appreciates the fairness ofthe action of the request of the HouseCommittee on Agriculture.

    This rule restores a tradition of fulland fair debate that always used totake place when farm bills came to thefloor. While I feel the committee bill isa reasonable consensus product, I know

    that many of my colleagues believe itcan be improved, and I very much lookforward to the discussion before us. Asa participant in its development, I be-lieve that our debate will provide anexcellent opportunity for all of our col-leagues and for the American people tosee the wisdom of the committee’swork.

    The open rule has become too rare inthe debates we have had in the Housein recent years. In the Committee onAgriculture we never considered havingthis bill considered on the floor in a re-strictive way. Anticipating an openrule, we knew that every decision wemade, every effort designed to setbudgetary priorities would be subjectto the full scrutiny of every Member ofthe House.

    I fully believe that anticipation of anopen floor debate helped us to build abetter bill in committee. As a result, ithas the support of a broad diversity ofinterests. And while the support of theagricultural community for our bill isgratifying, the validation of others isparticularly rewarding.

    Mr. Speaker, I very much look for-ward to our debate in the days aheadand I hope my colleagues will observethe benefits from this open and fairprocess.

    Mr. Speaker, the bill reforms our for-eign programs in a way that will pre-vent any future need for the billions ofdollars of emergency spending thathave been required in recent years. Itgreatly expands USDA’s conservationprograms. And I reemphasize that: an80 percent increase in the conservationtitle in this bill. It reauthorizes andimproves the food stamp program, andI am gratified for the support of thehunger community on this bill and inrecognizing the significance of thosethings that we did in the nutritioncomponent. It renews our emphasis onthe importance of rural economic de-velopment, particularly water and ag-ricultural research.

    Mr. Speaker, this bill has been scoredby the Congressional Budget Office,and its 10-year score is within the limitof the funds that were included withinthe budget resolution. Congress antici-pated the need for farm policy reform;and its passage, I believe, is the fiscallyresponsible thing to do.

    Though I strongly support this rule,Mr. Speaker, I wish to make momentof the state of affairs that has becomeapparent since budgetary reestimateswere released in August. Although it isthe case that the budget anticipatedfarm bill spending, the availability ofthe funds was made on a contingentbasis. For fiscal years 2003 through2011, funds are made available to pro-vide for a bill from the Committee onAgriculture if the chairman of theCommittee on the Budget makes an al-location subject to the condition.

    Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues arewell aware, and as my friend fromSouth Carolina has clearly shown to allMembers, only in the most technicalsense can it be regarded that the condi-

    tions of the money in this bill has beenmet. Our budget is busted. The budgetresolution is irrelevant. There is no onbudget surplus. We are into Social Se-curity and Medicare spending and weare on our way to a unified budget def-icit, all as a result of the economy andof September 11.

    Mr. Speaker, as we debate this ruleand the farm bill, we must be thinkingclearly about our budget responsibil-ities. Passage of this bill was antici-pated in the budget and is crucial toforestall the need for Congress to con-tinually provide emergency spending.However, we cannot avoid the fact thatits passage and all other spending billswe have recently considered and thatwill remain to be considered take usdeeper and deeper into Social Securityrevenue.

    Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunityto appeal to my colleagues in a bipar-tisan way and to the administration tonow develop a new budget. We need tounite on our budget now so that we donot make those mistakes today, withall good intentions, that will not be inthe best interest of our country 10years from today.

    I believe the bill that we bring beforethe House today from the agricultureperspective meets all of that criteria;and therefore, I urge the support of therule and of the bill.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. HINCHEY).

    Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I wantto express my appreciation to thechairman for producing this bill. Ithink the bill contains many goodthings. It reauthorizes the food stampprogram, does a very good job on that;it provides a great deal of authoriza-tion for appropriate research in agri-culture; and does many good things forthe agricultural community across thecountry.

    However, there is one glaring prob-lem with the underlying bill and therule that governs it. The underlyingbill makes inadequate provision for thedairy industry. Specifically, the inad-equate provision is the failure of thebill to recognize the need for dairycompacts, particularly in the East andSoutheastern parts of the UnitedStates where the dairy industry is ingreat peril. This rule does not providethe opportunity for a debate on thatissue, and that is a major defect in therule.

    Over and over again the leadership ofthis House has promised that therewould be an opportunity to debate theissue of dairy compacts and that therewould be an opportunity to have a voteone way or the other and allow theHouse to express its will on the issue ofdairy compacts. This bill fails to dothat and the rule fails to make in ordersuch an amendment. This is a glaringdeficiency.

    Why are we concerned about that?We are concerned about it because thedairy industry is an important part ofthe agricultural industry in this coun-try. Without the opportunity for dairy

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.087 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH6170 October 3, 2001compacts, a major portion of thatdairy industry, that which exists prin-cipally in the eastern part of the coun-try, both north and south, is in gravedanger of perishing. If we lose the dairyindustry, we lose an important part ofour communities all across New Eng-land and the middle Atlantic States.

    So the rule should be corrected. A de-bate on the dairy compacts ought to beauthorized. We ought to have an oppor-tunity to discuss this very criticalissue. Without that, the rule is grosslydeficient.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromIllinois (Mr. DAVIS).

    Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,while I do not have much problem withthe rule, and I actually compliment thecommittee, I am concerned that thisbill continues to provide protection forsome of our antiquated, outmoded, andunneeded subsidies, especially in thesugar program, where 1 percent of 17farms will receive 58 percent of the sub-sidy. That is one reason why I am ask-ing people and urging support for theMiller-Miller amendment when itcomes to the floor.

    Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Iyield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr.Speaker, I yield back the balance ofmy time, and I move the previous ques-tion on the resolution.

    The previous question was ordered.The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

    the table.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

    HASTINGS of Washington). Pursuant toHouse Resolution 248 and rule XVIII,the Chair declares the House in theCommittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill, H.R. 2646.

    b 1041

    IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

    Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2646) toprovide for the continuation of agricul-tural programs through fiscal year2011, with Mr. LAHOOD in the chair.

    The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

    rule, the bill is considered as havingbeen read the first time.

    Under the rule, the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. COMBEST) and the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM)each will control 1 hour.

    The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. COMBEST).

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

    (Mr. COMBEST asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I wantto begin by thanking my colleague, thegentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM),for his great efforts in arriving at avery bipartisan, very well-thought-outbill.

    I also want to thank the 51 membersof the House Committee on Agriculturefor the dedication and the time thatthey have put in to see us arrive todayat the product that we bring before theHouse. This has been long in coming.And I would be remiss if I did notthank the staff, minority and majoritystaff, for the tireless, long, long nights,weeks, and months, that they have putinto this process. We could not havedone it without them.

    Mr. Chairman, it is with great pridethat I rise today to bring before theHouse H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Actof 2001. This bill represents comprehen-sive agricultural legislation, makingimportant changes to all segments ofour food and agricultural industries;and I look forward to today’s debate.Most importantly, this bill provides aproactive market-oriented solution tothe critical economic crisis that hasbeen eroding the financial footing ofour Nation’s farmers and rural commu-nities for the past 4 years. Just as im-portant, this bill will prevent the needfor further ad hoc assistance for farm-ers in the future.

    Mr. Chairman, our committee hastaken a very deliberate approach tocrafting this farm bill. Over the past 2years, the House Committee on Agri-culture held some 47 hearings. We havetraveled to all regions of the countryto listen to the needs and the concernsof hardworking people from the farm-ing and agri-business community. Wehave asked all farm and interest groupsto provide very specific ideas on howthey would improve current agricul-tural policy, which we received fromthem. And, most importantly, we haveworked in a very open and bipartisanway to craft this bill, which enjoys anunprecedented level of support amongthe agricultural sector.

    b 1045

    Mr. Chairman, the key factor of thisbill’s success in committee, and itsoutcome today, is balance. In additionto addressing just about every issueunder the jurisdiction of the Com-mittee on Agriculture, H.R. 2646 rep-resents a bipartisan balance betweenseveral important issues, including: asafety net for America’s farmers;unmet soil and water conservationneeds; foreign trade and promotion pro-gram requirements; agricultural creditprograms for America’s farmers, ranch-ers and rural areas; important agricul-tural research initiatives; rural devel-opment programs that affect thousandsof rural communities across the coun-try; and the list goes on and on.

    I mention this in order to make thepoint that there is not a single pro-gram or issue addressed by this farmbill that could not be further improvedwith additional resources.

    However, as I stated, the bill rep-resents balance and it represents a bi-partisan balance that the Committeeon Agriculture crafted based on theinput that we received from America’sfarmers and ranchers, soil and water

    conservationists, agribusiness, privatefood aid organizations, and many oth-ers.

    The economic crisis that farmershave been facing since 1998 is not oftheir own making. Rather, it is a resultof large macroeconomic factors like in-creased supply resulting from favorableworld-wide weather trends, tighteningdemand resulting from slow economicgrowth rates, and a strong U.S. dollarpushing our products out of competi-tion and driving prices down on theworld market. What is more, in thelast 2 years farmers have been furthersqueezed by high energy prices whichhave dramatically increased theirinput costs.

    All of these are just reasons whyCongress has acted to provide relief inthe last 4 years; but more importantly,these are reasons why we need to acttoday and establish a more stablefarmer policy for the future.

    H.R. 2646 establishes the critical safe-ty net that our farmers and the entireagricultural sector need to help thisimportant sector of our economy growand prosper and create wealth for thefuture.

    H.R. 2646 also represents a fiscally re-sponsible approach to providing the as-sistance farmers need. The $73.5 billionin additional spending in H.R. 2646 wasfully contemplated by the budget reso-lution. The average $12 billion per yearthat would be spent on commodity sup-ports in this bill pales in comparison tothe average $23.3 billion that has beenspent over the last 4 years.

    H.R. 2646 will provide our Nation’sfarmers with the footing they need tocompete in the world marketplace. It isfully consistent with our obligationsunder the Uruguay Round Agreementon Agriculture as enforced by the WTO.In fact, there is a specific provision inthis bill which authorizes the Sec-retary of Agriculture to make adjust-ments in expenditure levels in order toensure compliance with our trade trea-ty obligations. Therefore, it is not onlyconsistent, but complementary, to aproactive trade policy that will seek tolevel the international playing fieldand open new markets to our productsfor the future.

    H.R. 2646 also has an unprecedentedlevel of support among the agriculturalcommunity. The bill is supported byvirtually all farm groups, agribusinessand industry groups, many conserva-tion groups, rural advocates, towns andcommunities.

    H.R. 2646 is a bipartisan and balancedway to address the needs of America’sagriculture sector. I look forward tocompleting action on this very impor-tant legislation.

    Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

    Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of this bill, and I want to begin byexpressing my appreciation to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. COMBEST) for

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.011 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6171October 3, 2001his leadership in bringing us to thispoint today, and to our colleagues onboth sides of the aisle who have par-ticipated in the many hours, weeks,months, yes, years in the developmentof this recommendation that we bringto the full House today.

    The policies contained in the bill rep-resent a truly balanced consensus ap-proach that reflects well on the processby which it was designed. While thereremain amendments to be considered,the product before us represents a truebipartisan consensus, and I believe ithas broad support.

    Mr. Chairman, the process for devel-oping this bill and the one in which the1996 farm bill was enacted are as dif-ferent as night and day. The 1996 farmbill was a philosophical document writ-ten by the House leadership. Therewere no public hearings, no process forthe Committee on Agriculture to builda consensus, and little optimism for itssuccess. Many of us who voted for itdid so because we had no other choice.

    Mr. Chairman, I will not be the firstto say that the 1996 farm bill is anutter failure. It has failed our farmers.This failure was so obvious to everyoneinvolved that Congress and the WhiteHouse have repeatedly in this and eachof the previous 3 years poured out bil-lions of unbudgeted additional dollarsin the form of direct payments to farm-ers.

    Mr. Chairman, much has been saidabout how difficult times have been forproducers in those years. This pointcannot be overstated, but it was thetaxpayers of America who were mostwidely disserved as the emergency pay-ments were spent without any repairbeing made to the underlying program.These payments were clear evidencethat the 1996 farm bill was not work-ing. Today’s farm bill gives the Housean opportunity to meet its responsi-bility to farmers, ranchers, and to theAmerican taxpayers.

    Congress included sufficient funds inthis year’s budget to ensure the Com-mittee on Agriculture had the tools todevelop a farm policy that helps farm-ers when crop revenues are low, whileproviding the predictability for govern-ment expenditures that taxpayers de-serve, and the predictability that ourbankers are demanding.

    With all of its strength, Mr. Chair-man, this bill is being considered underfiscal conditions that all of us hadhoped to avoid. If there were any con-sensus in the Congress about budgetarymatters as this year began, it was thatwe wanted to leave behind the era ofdeficit spending. To further that effort,many of us asked to be included in theprocess of developing our government’sbudget for fiscal year 2002 and beyond.The rhetoric that prevailed led us tobelieve that the budget was going to bedeveloped in an inclusive, bipartisanmanner.

    The Blue Dogs, in particular, wereprepared to bring to the table a planthat would have allowed for a tax cut,for an increase in defense spending, for

    solutions for Social Security and Medi-care problems, and for increases in pro-grams for agriculture, education, vet-erans, and health care.

    At the same time, our proposal wouldhave led to reduction in the Govern-ment’s debt, and it provided a cushionsufficient to guard against unforeseencircumstances pushing us back intodeficit spending.

    Mr. Chairman, our expectations forbipartisanship were not met; and what-ever its other flaws, the Congressionalbudget clearly failed to prepare for thecircumstances we now face. As a result,we are moving forward today with es-sentially no budget. Once again we willbe adding to our Nation’s debt.

    Mr. Chairman, for all practical pur-poses, we have no budget. We are ap-proaching major spending decisionswithout a plan. In the confusion, how-ever, there is an opportunity to developthis unity budget; and if my colleaguesneed a model for the development of anew budget, they need to look no fur-ther than the process used for devel-oping the bill which we present today.

    The American people are asking us tobe unified, and now more than ever wehave a clear obligation to the tax-payers of this Nation to make the bestof our resources. In that spirit, I urgeour leadership and the administrationto begin the process of developing anew budget so that discipline and somekind of rationale can guide our fiscaldecision-making.

    Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 is a goodbill. It is good for America’s farmerswhile providing predictability for ourtaxpayers. It would fit within the budg-et I have just described. It greatly ex-pands USDA’s conservation programswhile extending and improving the foodstamp program. In addition, it renewsour emphasis on the importance ofrural development and agricultural re-search.

    In closing, I would like to once againthank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.COMBEST) for his leadership and skill indeveloping a consensus product. I urgeall of my colleagues to vote for passageof this bill.

    Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield7 minutes to the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. LUCAS), the chairman of theSubcommittee on Conservation, Credit,Rural Development and Research.

    Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair-man, I rise to urge my colleagues tosupport H.R. 2646 and its conservationtitle, what might accurately be de-scribed by some as the greenest ever.

    American farmers and ranchers arethe original conservationists of thiscountry. We are the people the farmbill is intended to help. The farm bill’spurpose is to assist in providing uswith the tools to competitivelyproduce food and fiber in the domesticand world markets.

    Furthermore, Congress encouragesproducers to do so in an environ-mentally friendly manner, while con-

    tinuing to provide the American con-sumer with the cheapest, safest andmost reliable food supply in the historyof the world.

    After listening to 23 organizationsand coalitions testify at three sub-committee hearings, and in an effort toaccommodate the American producerand the environment, I laid out a planin my own conservation bill to helpproducers and the American public byproviding sound assistance to U.S. pro-ducers.

    It is critical to remember that notjust one time but many times numer-ous groups asked us to place moremoney than we were able to place inevery single existing program, and inmost new programs.

    On the committee, both Republicanand Democrat members worked to finda balanced bill so we would not have tocome back to Congress and ask for adhoc disaster bills year after year. Wehave found that balance in the man-ager’s amendment to H.R. 2646.

    The centerpiece of the conservationtitle is the Environmental Quality In-centives Program, EQIP. Farmers andranchers have to deal with a number ofState and Federal environmental rules,regulations and laws; and many justwant to be even better stewards of theland.

    The current program is only $200 mil-lion per year. The livestock coalitiontestified before us this year and askedfor $2.5 billion per year. H.R. 2646 pro-vides producers with $1.285 billion peryear. Fifty percent of the money goesto crop producers and 50 percent goesto livestock producers. This is theexact requirement under current laws.This is the most important working-lands provision in the conservationtitle. Crop and fruit and vegetable pro-ducers are counting on this program tohelp them with all types of conserva-tion efforts.

    The problem with EQIP was thatthere were priority areas that deter-mined how and where the money wasto be spent. If a producer was in anarea that fell outside of these priorityareas, chances were slim to none thatthey could receive Federal help. By re-forming priority areas and allowingeach contract to be considered on itsown merit, I believe that we providedmore money in the program that willhelp Congress assist all producers fair-ly and not penalize someone simply be-cause their county is outside a des-ignated priority area.

    The bill provides a maximum of$50,000 per year or $200,000 total over 10years for all EQIP contracts. Some peo-ple want to ignore large animal feedingoperations and contract growers. Itwould be hard for Congress to reach adesired environmental result if we ig-nore the needs of some producers. Thepayment limitation will ensure thatthe money is spread out fairly betweensmall, medium, and large operations.As a matter of fact, the bill evenchanges EQIP contracts so that small-er producers can sign up for 1- to 10-

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.013 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH6172 October 3, 2001year contracts. Plus, they can be paidin the same year in which they sign thecontract. Both of these provisions weretaken from my bill to help small pro-ducers.

    The Conservation Reserve Program isanother important program. Manygroups wanted to leave the program atits current level, while others wantedCRP to increase to as high as 45 mil-lion acres. H.R. 2646 reaches a balanceby allowing nearly 40 million acres, or39.2 million acres, to be exact, into theCRP.

    The new Grasslands Reserve Programis another important program based onmy idea that allows 10- and 15- and 20-year contracts. To build consensus, thefull committee added 30-year contractsand permanent easements. The com-mittee supports permanent easementsin GRP because it is a true working-lands program, not a land-idling pro-gram.

    The Committee on Agriculture fol-lowed the subcommittee’s rec-ommendation by including 150,000 acresper year of Wetland Reserve Programacreage, a million and a half over thelife of the bill. And yes, it comes witha price tag of $1.84 billion. This is thelargest increase of all of the major pro-grams.

    H.R. 2646 provides $500 million worthof funding for the Farmland ProtectionProgram. Since States must match 50percent of its funding, it is hard togauge whether all of this money will beused or simply go to the wealthiestStates.

    b 1100

    Finally, H.R. 2646 provides $25 mil-lion per year, ramping up to $50 millionper year for the wildlife habitat incen-tives program.

    My goal as the Conservation Sub-committee chairman was to secure alarge sum of money for the conserva-tion title in the new farm bill. I amthrilled to stand here today and saythat we have an increase of over 75 per-cent in funding. The current programsspend $2.1 billion per year. H.R. 2646will spend nearly $3.7 billion per year.Yes, $37 billion on conservation overthe life of this farm bill.

    I heard concerns regarding some ofthe changes the committee made in itsdraft. I worked diligently to addressthe problems presented to me by var-ious groups and am happy to say thatwe found compromise on issues such asswampbuster regulation and manywildlife concerns. Furthermore, Iworked with the National Associationof Conservation Districts and the com-mittee to reach an agreement on tech-nical assistance funding.

    In closing, I would simply say thatthis is a zero sum game. If we needmore money in one area of the farmbill, it must come out of one of theother areas or programs or our ownconservation funding.

    Simply, Mr. Chairman, supportAmerica’s producers and the environ-ment. Support H.R. 2646.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromArkansas (Mr. BERRY).

    Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want tothank the ranking member and thechairman of this committee for thewonderful work that they have done incrafting a bill that is the best that wecould do given the resources at our dis-posal. I think they did an outstandingjob, along with the staff of the Com-mittee on Agriculture on both sides ofthe aisle. I want to compliment themfor the great work that they have done.

    Mr. Chairman, the United States ofAmerica has the safest, most abundant,and the most reasonably priced foodand fiber supply of any nation in theworld by more than half. We do twiceas well in that respect as any other na-tion. It is something that we can bevery proud of and very thankful for.

    The Farm Security Act of 2001 en-sures our ability to continue toproduce our own supply of affordablefood and fiber. Without this assistanceto our farmers, production will moveoffshore, forcing the U.S. to depend onother nations for our food. This is, infact, a national security issue.

    I believe, I have not read it, but I amtold that there is a story in a nationalnewspaper today criticizing and ridi-culing that idea. If we did not have theability to feed ourselves and producethat food right here in this country,our national security would indeed bethreatened.

    Nearly every farm organization inthe country has endorsed this bill.They support the 80 percent increase inconservation spending to help makethis the greenest farm bill ever and tomake sure that we continue the effortto improve our water quality, to im-prove the protection of our soil, andthe air quality in this country.

    This will benefit not only rural, buturban communities. It helps supportthe rural economy by helping farmersbreak even. I have heard many storiesin the last few months, and particu-larly in the last couple of weeks, andespecially just yesterday about thisbill just goes to subsidize farmers andinefficient producers and so-called fatcat producers.

    Mr. Chairman, today no one is get-ting into farming. If this is such a lu-crative idea and a lucrative piece oflegislation, we would have people linedup trying to get in this business in-stead of lined up trying to get out of it.If we do not pass this farm bill thisweek, or before this Congress goes outof session, I can tell you that it is athreat to our ability to continue tofeed and clothe this country in an effi-cient manner.

    I want to be on record as being sup-portive of this bill, the way it came outof committee with almost no amend-ments. There will be an amendment of-fered that will attempt to totally reor-ganize food policy in this country, andI think we should oppose it.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Ne-

    braska (Mr. OSBORNE), one of the mostactive members of our committee.

    Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I riseto support H.R. 2646, and really for sev-eral reasons.

    One is I have been very impressed bythe process that the committee hasgone through. This bill has been in de-velopment for 2 years. We have hadhearings all across the country. Wehave had roughly 50 different agri-culture, environmental, conservationgroups appear before the committee.They have been asked to write the billas they see it ought to be. So everyonehas had input. It has not been done ina closet. I think that the chairman hasbeen very fair in the way he has ap-proached it.

    This is the only comprehensive farmbill in existence in this Congress or inthe Senate as well. It deals with com-modities; it increases conservation ex-penditures by 80 percent; it deals withrural development; research increasedby 20 percent; and trade.

    There are some questions that havebeen raised already, and I am sure theywill come up later today. Why do wehave payments to wealthy farmers? InNebraska, there are 54,000 farms. Wehave roughly nine entities that receivepayments of $500,000 or more. These aremultiple entities where you have auntsand uncles and brothers and sisters, sothey are not single farmers that are re-ceiving this amount of money.

    This is one out of every 6,000 farmsthat receives a large payment. The re-turn on equity is roughly 4 percent. Ifyou take the government subsidies outof farming, you go to a zero balance, orbelow zero. Three-fourths of our farmsin the United States currently rely onoff-the-farm income for survival, so wehave both the farmer and the farm wifeoften working off farm and most of thetime the farm wife, too.

    Some have said this is too expensive.Over the last 4 years, we have averaged$22 billion a year on agriculture. Muchof that has been in emergency pay-ments. In this bill, we will average $17billion a year which is $5 billion less,and obviously we have to get awayfrom emergency payments.

    Some have also said why do we pro-vide a safety net for agriculture? InEurope, the average subsidy is $300 to$500 per acre because they have experi-enced what hunger is like at one pointor another. In South America land is$300. The idea is that in the UnitedStates our subsidies are very reason-able, very cheap.

    I certainly urge the passage of thisbill.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromOregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER).

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, Iappreciate the gentleman’s courtesy ingiving me some time to speak on thisissue.

    One might ask why a city boy is onthe floor dealing with the agriculturebill. Well, in my State, agriculture isthe third largest industry. In my dis-trict, agriculture has a prominent role.

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.014 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6173October 3, 2001I deeply care about food and water sup-ply and its price. And, most important,we are all influenced by agriculture,whether we live in cities, suburban orrural areas, particularly as it impactsthe environment, as it deals withwater, land use and the environmentfor us all.

    This is an opportunity for us to enterinto a new era for agriculture. TheUnited States launched an unprece-dented effort during the Depression torescue our agricultural system, and itwas a dramatic success. It has devel-oped the most productive agriculturalsystem in the world. There is no dis-puting that. But the problem is thattoday, two-thirds of a century later,the system drives decisions to the det-riment of many farmers, consumers,our trade position and the environ-ment.

    The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act was abad solution to this admitted problem.We can, in fact, do better. I have metwith the agricultural producers and thepeople on the board of agriculture inmy State. This summer they wereunanimous in saying that the systemmisses the mark for them. They do notbenefit; the wrong people, by and large,do; they do not need what we have now,but they do need assistance. I agreewith the Bush administration that thiscurrent bill does not hit the mark.

    I look forward to a series of amend-ments that we are going to be dis-cussing in the course of the day, par-ticularly the Boehlert-Kind-Dingell-Gilchrest bill that will help us make amodest shift towards giving whatAmericans and the agricultural com-munity really need. It is an oppor-tunity to provide benefit for all farm-ers, not a chosen few. It is an oppor-tunity for us to do a far better job ofprotecting the environment.

    It is true, the underlying bill has an80 percent improvement or whatever.But that speaks to the point that weare not adequately funding the provi-sions that we have now. We run out ofmoney. There are people that arestanding in line to use it.

    I commend the leadership of the com-mittee for the consensus effort thatthey have attempted, reaching out.There are some things in this bill thatI appreciate. I urge my colleagues,however, to not settle for this incre-mental step. We can take another im-portant step to create a new directionfor agriculture for this new century.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Ala-bama (Mr. EVERETT), chairman of theSubcommittee on Specialty Crops andForeign Agriculture Programs.

    Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the chairman and the rankingmember for the outstanding work theyhave done to produce this bill that hadto compete with a lot of interests.

    The U.S. farm economy is experi-encing one of the worst cycles of de-pressed prices since the Great Depres-sion, while the costs for major inputssuch as fuel and fertilizer are up 25 per-

    cent over the last 4 years. This has re-sulted in a growing crisis in much ofrural America. Without the disaster as-sistance funds Congress has provided tofarmers over the last 4 years, thou-sands of U.S. farmers and rancherswould have no doubt been put out ofbusiness and seen their livelihoods dis-appear.

    Our producers are some of the mostefficient in the world, but they cannotpossibly be expected to compete withtheir counterparts in other countrieswhen those countries subsidize theirproducers at levels much higher thanour own and the tariffs on agriculturalproducts in other countries are fivetimes higher than those in the U.S.

    These represent only a few of the ob-stacles faced by the Committee on Ag-riculture when trying to develop farmbill legislation that would ensureAmerica’s producers are given a propersafety net to allow them to remain via-ble, while providing us with the safest,most affordable food and fiber supplyin the entire world. The food and fibersupply constitutes a major componentof our national defense, our nationalsecurity, and I do not really care whosays otherwise. If you cannot feed yourpeople, then you cannot defend yourpeople. It is that simple.

    This bill, H.R. 2646, the Farm Secu-rity Act of 2001, is the product of al-most 2 years of work by the Committeeon Agriculture which held dozens ofhearings throughout the country andhere in Washington with most majorfarm and commodity groups rep-resented. Over 300 witnesses presentedtestimony before the committee.

    In the subcommittee I chair on spe-cialty crops and foreign agricultureprograms, we saw the necessity to re-form the peanut program to ensure thesurvival of the peanut industry in thiscountry and restore profitability forour peanut producers. We heard frompeanut producers, shellers and manu-facturers alike, and critics of the pro-gram, and they all realized it was timefor a new program that moved awayfrom the two-tiered pricing system,which would be impossible to maintainin the future.

    The need for change was real, withtariffs on Mexican peanuts decreasingeach year until they completely dis-appear in 2008. Also, Argentina is seek-ing NAFTA-like access to our marketfor their peanuts. Without a change tothe current program, increasing im-ports would continue to put pressureon domestic production to the pointwhere the Secretary would be requiredto lower quotas, which would decreasethe safety net for producers.

    We looked to make the peanut pro-gram much like other program crops,combining proven and successful com-ponents like the marketing loan andfixed-decoupled payments with the newcounter-cyclical component, while alsoproviding a quota compensation pay-ment to quota holders. This new pro-gram will provide producers with asafety net that gives some price protec-

    tion while also helping to regain ourmarket share that has been lost to im-ports. It will also save the industry inthis country.

    The bill not only contains a strongprogram for peanut producers, butstrong and balanced programs for allproducers of all commodities, in addi-tion to an improved conservation title,which does indeed receive an 80 percentincrease in funding. The bill also con-tains strong and improved trade, nutri-tion, credit, research, rural develop-ment, and forestry titles.

    b 1115

    The Committee on Agriculture had alot of hard decisions to make amongmany competing interests. What wehave developed is a very balanced billwhich works to address the needs thatare facing rural America today.

    Again, I say I appreciate the strongleadership that we received from ourfull committee chairman and from ourranking member.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 6 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom North Carolina (Mrs. CLAYTON).

    Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman from Texas foryielding me time.

    Mr. Chairman, I was reminded whenwe called our farm bill the Farm Secu-rity Act of 2001, which I think is appro-priate, I remember Chairman Kika dela Garza, when I first came to Con-gress, gave this analogy of what itmeant to secure the Nation by makingthis analogous story about going intothe bowels of a submarine and how thesubmarine had secured the safety ofour country. They wanted to knowwhat was the magic of the submarinebeing able to sustain so long. Theysaid, as long as the food lasted. I am re-minded that a Nation that cannot feeditself, indeed, cannot secure its food,cannot secure its population.

    In his book The Third Freedom,former Senator and the 1972 nomineefor President candidate was GeorgeMcGovern. He reflects on the shame hefelt watching a 1968 CBS documentary,Hunger in the USA.

    Senator McGovern remembers ayoung hungry boy silently watching ashis classmate ate his lunch. When thereporter asked the boy what he wasthinking as he stood and watched hisclassmate eat, the boy replied, ‘‘I amashamed.’’ He said, ‘‘I am ashamed, be-cause I ain’t got no money.’’

    Senator McGovern writes that he wasashamed. He, the powerful Senator whowas in authority to do much, he wasashamed. He said, ‘‘I felt ashamed, be-cause I had not known more about hun-ger in my own land. I was ashamedthat a Federal program, that I was sup-posed to know about and allowed, per-mitted youngsters to go hungry; and asthey watched their paying classmateeat before their eyes they felt ashamedthat they had no money.’’

    Well, I rise today to tell my col-leagues that while the problem of hun-ger, both in the United States and

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.016 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH6174 October 3, 2001abroad, continues to plague us, this billtakes significant steps to alleviate andto mitigate the suffering of millions,millions, of people. I hope no one feelsashamed that they have voted for this,but feel empowered as human beingsthat they have allowed people to eat.

    I want to thank the Chair and theranking member of the committee forworking to ensure that this farm bill,like past farm bills, includes a nutri-tional title. Once again we can see thepowerful connection between Americanagricultural producers and workingfamilies who struggle to put food onthe table.

    We also can see the connection be-tween a large segment of this Congress,who have no farmers in their area, infact, the vast majority of our Membershave no farmers in their area, but theydo have hungry people in their area,and this farm bill makes the connec-tion between those who are strugglingto put food on their table and the pro-ducers who produce the food for themto eat.

    H.R. 2646 makes several significantchanges to the food stamp program. Infact, this bill provides one of the mostsignificant and sensible investments inthe program in recent years. The im-provements are bipartisan and they aresupported by nutritional groupsthroughout the Nation, as well asState administrators alike. As in thepast, we can see today that hungry peo-ple transcend partisan divide. There isnot a Republican nor a Democraticview on this.

    I am especially happy to know thatthis bill provides transitional benefitsto families leaving welfare for work,thus supporting the aims of welfare re-form and ensuring that we supportthose families who make a good faitheffort even to enter the workplace. Thebill updates the standard and the de-duction and simplifies the operation ofthe program, much to the delight ofthose who administer the program.

    All in all, while the nutrition titledoes not by any means include every-thing that some of us, including my-self, would have wanted, it is a goodcompromise, a sensible compromise, abipartisan compromise, and, most im-portantly, a compromise that will ben-efit millions of Americans who liveunder the spector of hunger day in andday out.

    I would like to also briefly note thatthis bill includes another importantauthorization in combination with theCommittee on International Relations,the Global Food for Education Initia-tive, also known as the McGovern-DoleInternational School Lunch Program.This important program exports to de-veloping countries what we have al-ready learned here, that good nutritionis a foundation of learning. This pro-vides millions and millions of youngchildren in developing countries,whether it is India, Africa, or China, tohave the opportunity of having nutri-tion be a part of their learning experi-ence. I look forward to continued work

    to see the implementation of this im-portant program.

    Once again, I would like to thank thechairman and ranking member fortheir effort, and the committee. Theyhave been fair and they have workedhard with me to ensure that the farmbill does not leave behind millions ofAmericans and also have offered theopportunity that both our commoditiesand our compassion will be seen in for-eign countries.

    I urge my colleagues, those who sup-port hungry and working families, toalso support the Farm Security Act of2001.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield7 minutes to the gentleman from Geor-gia (Mr. CHAMBLISS), the chairman ofthe Subcommittee on General FarmCommodities and Risk Management.

    Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, Irise in strong support of H.R. 2646, theFarm Security Act of 2001.

    The Farm Security Act is the resultof the undying passion of the gen-tleman from Texas (Chairman COM-BEST) for the betterment of Americanagriculture. The comprehensive bipar-tisan process that was participated inby my good friend the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. STENHOLM) gave us Com-mittee on Agriculture members the op-portunity to listen to producers allacross the country. The open doorprocess gave us the ability to craft abalanced bill that is good for all.

    The Farm Security Act is a culmina-tion of 2 years work. The House Com-mittee on Agriculture has held 47 fieldhearings and one forum between Marchof 2000 and July of 2001 in preparationfor this farm bill.

    In the full committee, field hearingsheld across the committee this year,and the hearings held by the Sub-committee on General Farm Commod-ities and Risk Management this year,producers expressed to us their desiresto continue planting flexibility andalso to establish a safety net. The com-modity title of H.R. 2646 does just that.It preserves the planting flexibilityfrom the current law; it provides asafety net for commodity prices; it sig-nificantly reforms the peanut programand puts it on par with traditionalcommodity programs.

    The safety net provided in the bill isa more responsible way of providing as-sistance to producers. Rather thansending off-budget, ad hoc assistance tofarm country, which we have done overthe last several years because it hasbeen absolutely needed, a counter-cyclical mechanism will provide eco-nomic assistance when triggered.

    The commodity title is a plan that isideal, not only for Texas, not only forGeorgia, but good for the whole coun-try. And in the words of Dean Gale Bu-chanan of the College of Agriculture atthe University of Georgia, ‘‘It is impor-tant to realize that while farmers aredirectly impacted, the magnitude andimportance of agriculture ultimatelytouches every single American.’’ Over80 national and regional producer,

    processor, banking, and environmentalgroups have voiced their support forthe Farm Security Act.

    Some groups which are unfamiliarwith agriculture and farming, will tryto make you believe that big farms arebad farms; that these big farms are cor-porate farms rather than family farms.Well, I want to give you an actual ex-ample of what is sometimes referred toby the opponents of agriculture of acorporate farm that is actually a fam-ily farm.

    This is a farm that exists in theState of Alabama. I have titled it theWalker Farm. There are three brotherswho are the primary farmers in this op-eration. This operation this year tills7,000 acres, and it is comprised of thesethree brothers and their children, atotal of seven individuals who are actu-ally engaged in farming under the FSAregulations. Each one of those thus isresponsible basically for a 1,000-acreoperation, but this in and of itself islooked to as a corporate farm.

    What we have here is we have MikeWalker, who is the primary operator ofthe farm. His wife, Michelle, is activelyengaged in the operation because shekeeps all the books, and she has foryears. His brother, Jack, is part of thefarming operation, is actually one ofthe guys who drives a tractor on a reg-ular basis; and, again, his wife Jill par-ticipates in the bookkeeping and man-agement operations of the farm. Theyhave another brother, Paul, who is anactive participant. Then each of themhave children and wives of those chil-dren that are actively engaged in farm-ing.

    This particular operation this yearhad 7,000 tillable acres, and they grewpeanuts, cotton, hay, and corn. Theseindividuals participated in the crop in-surance program, which was of benefitto the local community, provided fundsin the local economy through the in-surance industry. They participate inall types of conservation practices, likeno till farming, like terracing theirland. They are good stewards of theland.

    They, in addition, participate in theBoll Weevil Eradication Program,which is a program that is creative andinnovative that the government put inplace several years ago, that has al-lowed cotton farmers all across thecountry to eradicate the boll weevil,which has been a significant problemfor years.

    At the same time, these farmers havechallenges. They have challenges thatthe ordinary businessman does nothave, challenges like drought. For thelast several years in our part of thecountry, we have had significantdrought, and that has been one of thereasons why we had to come forwardwith disaster programs in this town tosend out to ag country.

    In addition to drought, on the oppo-site end of that, at the end of the yearwe have been subject to having hurri-canes. Once we had the drought, then itcame time to harvest the crop, and

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.018 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6175October 3, 2001hurricanes blew in from the Gulf ofMexico and did not allow the farmersto get into the field to harvest whatcrops they did make. These are the ev-eryday challenges that farmers allacross America have to face.

    Land acquisition is another problem.Land that our folks have rented in pastyears is now being developed. Theysimply are having to pay too high aprice for land when they buy it, andthey are having to pay too high a pricewhen they rent it, because it is nowbeing developed from a commercialstandpoint because farmers cannotmake a living.

    The other issue that is critically im-portant in agriculture today is lowcommodity prices. Commodity pricesare currently at the lowest point theyhave been in the last 30 years.

    I asked some of these Walker folksabout some particular issues they dealwith. I asked Mr. Walker about cottonprices, for example, which today arethe lowest they have been in the last 16years. He said, ‘‘Most farmers are goingto have to make extraordinary yieldsthis year on cotton production just tobreak even.’’

    I said, ‘‘Well, what about the size ofyour operation? Why are you a 7,000-acre operation?’’

    He said to us, ‘‘Staying in businessrequired getting bigger. Our marginsper acre are so small that in order forour family to make a living, we had tokeep growing.’’

    I asked him about surviving. Whatabout survival of the family farm?

    He said, ‘‘We don’t indulge in ex-travagancies. When it is possible, wereinvest in the business. We are stillhere today because we work together,we have continued to adapt to change,and we have reinvested in our busi-ness.’’

    b 1130

    Now, I come from a State where agri-culture is the number one industry. Myhome county is the most diversified ag-riculture county east of the Mis-sissippi, and I know firsthand what theproblems are. The problems are real.This bill addresses the problems thatfarmers all across America have byproviding a safety net; and, Mr. Chair-man, I urge its passage.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromWisconsin (Mr. KIND).

    Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank thegentleman from Texas for yielding methis time.

    Mr. Chairman, I am a proud memberof the Committee on Agriculture, and Iam a representative from the State ofWisconsin. In Wisconsin, the dairy in-dustry is still the number one industryin the entire State. The district I rep-resent, the Third Congressional Dis-trict of western Wisconsin, has ap-proximately 10,500 family farms stillexisting, still operating, today, all ofwhich are producing some commoditycrops. Therefore, I have had a stronginterest, and all of the members of the

    committee have had a strong interest,in putting together a farm bill that isgoing to provide the assistance thatour family farmers need across thecountry and not just in one particularregion.

    In Wisconsin, over the last couple ofyears, we have been losing betweenfour and five family farms a day, be-cause of the low prices, because of thelow milk prices, because of low com-modity prices. So obviously, the farmbill that we have been operating underover the last 5 years has not inured tothe benefit of most family farmersacross the country. That is why I feelthat it is time for a new approach withfarm policy.

    I certainly appreciate the hard workof the chairman, the gentleman fromTexas (Mr. COMBEST); and the rankingmember, the gentleman from Texas(Mr. STENHOLM); and all the memberson the committee throughout thecourse of the last couple of years inputting together a comprehensive farmbill approach for the next 10 years. Ithas got to be one of the most difficultjobs in this place to do, to deal with allof the competing interests and all ofthe competing ideas and the policy pro-posals, and how do we weave that intoa workable document to reach con-sensus. I commend them for theirwork, and I commend them for agree-ing to an open rule, so that we canhave an honest discussion and policydebate on some points of differencethat some of us might have in regardsto the direction that the base billwould take us in over the next 10 years.

    That is why I am going to be offeringan amendment, along with the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT)and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.GILCHREST) and the gentleman fromMichigan (Mr. DINGELL) that wouldtake a little bit of the money thatwould go to an increase in the com-modity subsidies to the largest pro-ducers in this country and move thoseresources into the voluntary and incen-tive-based land and water conservationprograms. We do that to help morefamily farmers in all regions of thecountry, especially those regions andfarmers who are currently excludedunder the current farm bill and wouldcontinue to be excluded under the di-rection of this new farm bill. We thinkthat is the fair thing to do. We thinkthe equitable thing to do is to includemore regions and more farmers in sup-porting them in their time of need.

    Why is this important? Well, we canprovide economic assistance to morefarmers, including large commodityproducers, through these conservationprograms. They would still qualifyunder these programs, but we wouldalso derive a certain societal benefitthrough better watershed management,quality drinking supplies, the protec-tion of wildlife and fish habitat and, ul-timately, the protection of valuablecropland itself through the farmlandprotection program that would receivemore resources under our amendment.

    We are hoping that the next crop thatis planted on these family farms is nota shopping mall, because we see the un-bridled sprawl and the loss of produc-tive farmland occurring throughoutthe country today.

    So I would encourage my colleaguesto listen to the debate on this amend-ment and I ask for their support; and Iagain commend the leadership, giventhe work that they have put in thus faron the farm bill.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa(Mr. NUSSLE), who has a tremendousinterest in agriculture, as well as beingthe chairman of the House Committeeon the Budget.

    (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

    Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.

    Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-port of this legislation, the Farm Secu-rity Act of 2001. This is important tomeet the needs of our changing na-tional agricultural community, and itis within the framework of the budgetresolution that we passed earlier thisyear.

    The fiscal year 2002 budget providedfor this important bill $7.3 billion infiscal year 2002, and $40 billion over thefirst 5 years and $73 billion over 10years. This is on top of the $5 billion itprovided for agriculture emergencies in2001. The budget resolution accommo-dated these amounts by establishing a302(a) allocation for the Committee onAgriculture for fiscal year 2002 thatcould be used at the committee’s dis-cretion for emergency relief and couldalso be used to authorize this farm bill.

    This is the context in which we findourselves here today. The Committeeon Agriculture, under the leadership ofChairman COMBEST and Ranking Mem-ber STENHOLM, have done yeoman workover the last 10 months and beyond tobring us to this particular point.

    For those people, including the ad-ministration, who wandered up here toCapitol Hill today and said, why are wedoing a farm bill: they have not beenpaying attention. I was shocked mo-ments ago to get a statement of admin-istration policy that makes it soundlike they do not know why we aredoing this.

    When the Agriculture Secretarycame before my Committee on theBudget earlier this year, we put her onnotice that we were going to write thefarm bill this year; we were going tobudget for it this year; that farmerswere tired of ad hoc emergencies on topof ad hoc emergencies; that we weretired of administrations in the pastwho got new farm bill legislation andthen did not implement it; we are tiredof the fact that we are writing farmbills during a time of contracting mar-kets overseas and thinking that a farmbill, in and of itself, will solve theproblem, because we are not expandingour trade, the farm bill does not work.When we do not implement the farm

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.019 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH6176 October 3, 2001bill, how can we expect farmers to sur-vive under this kind of a situation?

    I know that there are people aroundthe country that are waking up todayfinding out for the first time, maybe inquite a few years, that their 401(k) hascollapsed. This is not news that theeconomy is in trouble in farm country.It has been that way for over 4 years.So for the administration or anybodyelse to wander to this floor today andexpress disbelief and wonderment, whyare you writing a farm bill, because itis time to react to a very serious situa-tion in farm country.

    Now, I will tell my colleagues thatthere is no farm bill that these twogentlemen and their committee couldhave created that would solve all of theproblems. First of all, one size does notfit all. We all know that. Every farm isdifferent, every ranch is different,every producer is different. They havedifferent needs. There is not one farmbill we could create, particularly by acommittee or by a Congress that couldaddress it, but they have tried. Theyhave addressed the trouble from thelast few years. The countercyclical na-ture of agriculture, they have ad-dressed it in this bill. Is it perfect? Ofcourse not. Of course it is not perfect.

    But for people to say after 10 monthsof work to all of a sudden wake uptoday and say, oh, my gosh, you meanto tell me they are writing a farm billup there on Capitol Hill? You mean totell me that we are actually budgetingfor these things instead of just shellingout money on an emergency basis? Forpeople to wake up and assume that is amistake, and it is a pattern that trou-bles me that this administration maybe, in fact, falling into a similar trap ofprevious administrations.

    If this administration fails to imple-ment, fails to expand these markets,and fails to react to the changing eco-nomics in farm country, we will not beable to compete in the global markets.

    Pass this bill. It fits within the budg-et. It deserves our careful attentionduring this economic situation acrossthe country.

    INTRODUCTION

    Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support ofH.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001.This important legislation meets the needs ofour Nation’s agricultural community within theframework established by the budget resolu-tion.

    I take special interest in this bill, not only asa representative of an agricultural district, butalso as the chairman of a committee thatworked very hard to establish a fiscal frame-work under which this bill could be considered.

    ASSUMPTIONS IN THE BUDGET RESOLUTION ON FARMBILL

    This fiscal year 2002 budget provided forthis important bill $7.3 billion in fiscal year2002, $40.2 over five years, and $73.5 billionover ten years. This is on top of the $5.5 bil-lion it provided for agricultural emergencies infiscal year 2001.

    The budget resolution accommodated theseamounts by establishing a 302(a) allocation forthe Committee on Agriculture for fiscal years2002 that could be used at the committee’s

    discretion for emergency relief or reauthoriza-tion of the farm bill. It set aside the rest in areserve fund that can only used for a reauthor-ization of the farm bill.

    In providing the necessary funds for this bill,the Budget Committee’s interest was both inmeeting the immediate needs of our Nation’sfarmers for the fiscal year just concluded andin facilitating efforts to overhaul or Nation’s ag-ricultural support system.

    While the budget resolution left the detailsof the farm bill to the Agriculture Committee,it was carefully crafted to encourage efforts toaddress the underlying weaknesses in existingfarm programs instead of resorting to the adhoc emergency assistance of recent years.

    POLICY ISSUES

    As you know, the Committee on Agriculturealready availed itself of $5.5 billion of the re-sources provided in the budget resolutionwhen it reported legislation providing addi-tional farm income support payments in fiscalyear 2001, which was enacted in August ofthis year.

    The committee now brings before the Housea bill that addresses some of the longer termproblems confronted by the agricultural com-munity.

    It does so by combining fixed crop pay-ments with counter cyclical assistance. Thisaffords our Nation’s farmers a more stablesource of income, given the wide market fluc-tuations we’ve seen in the past few years. Ibelieve that this approach provides both theplanting flexibility of the Freedom To Farm Actand the income stability of traditional agricul-tural programs.

    At the same time, the bill addresses someof the broader needs of rural America by reau-thorizing key conservation programs.

    Obviously everyone can find something todisagree with in a bill as comprehensive asthis. I for one will encourage any future con-ferees on this bill to fine tune some of its poli-cies. Nevertheless, this bill represents hugeprogress over the ad hoc emergency assist-ance of the last four years.

    BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

    As the Chairman of the Budget Committee,I am especially pleased that Chairman COM-BEST, Ranking Member STENHOLM and the en-tire Agriculture Committee have succeeded indeveloping these reforms within the appro-priate levels established by the budget resolu-tion.

    As modified by the manager’s amendment,the bill would increase new budget authorityby $3 billion in fiscal year 2002, $35.8 billionthrough fiscal year 2006 and $73.1 billionthrough fiscal year 2011.

    As permitted under sections 213 and 221 ofthe budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 83), I amexercising my authority to increase the Agri-culture Committee’s 302(a) allocation to thelevels necessary to permit the consideration ofthis bill. The letter making the adjustment hasalready been submitted for printing in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

    COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

    According to estimates provided by the Con-gressional Budget Office, this bill comes inunder the Agriculture Committee’s adjusted al-location by fully $4.3 billion in fiscal year 2002and $4.4 billion over five years.

    Accordingly, the bill fully complies with sec-tion 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act,which prohibits the consideration of measures

    that exceed the reporting committee’s 302(a)allocation.

    Although bills such as this are only requiredto meet the first and five-year limits imposedby the budget resolution in the House, I wouldobserve that over 10 years the bill comes inalmost $367 million under the levels assumedin the resolution. Clearly the Agriculture Com-mittee went to considerable pains to complywith both the letter and spirit of the budgetresolution.

    While I would observe that this bill exceedsthe budget resolution’s $66 billion thresholdcited in section 313 for the cost of the farm billover the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2011by around $3 billion. This overage is morethan offset in fiscal year 2002, when the billuses up only $3 billion of a $7 billion alloca-tion.

    CONCLUSION

    Once again, the Farm Security Act is aunique measure that manages to addressmany of the needs of our Nation’s farm com-munity within the fiscally responsible frame-work of the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution.I strongly urge all my colleagues to supportthis important legislation.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromPuerto Rico (Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ).

    Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman,I would like to thank the chairman andthe ranking member for their commit-ment to bring about a complete farmbill with all titles. This bill is the fruitof dedication and commitment thatcommittee members have for the peo-ple that this House represents. I ap-plaud the committee’s work to increasefunds to titles such as conservation,rural development and trade, all ofwhich are extremely important areasfor the Nation and for the people ofPuerto Rico that I represent, especiallyour farmers and growers.

    I would like to emphasize the impor-tance the nutrition title contained inthis bill has for the 430,000 PuertoRican families that depend on nutri-tion assistance to keep their childrenfed and healthy. Title IV reauthorizesthe Nutritional Assistance Program,better known in Puerto Rico as PAN,for the next 10 years, with increases infunding for each year. The PuertoRican nutritional assistance programserves the same purpose in Puerto Ricoas the food stamps program serves inthe States: to reduce hunger, to im-prove the health of our children, andensure our Nation a brighter future.We cannot afford hungry children inour school rooms. Nutrition assistanceis an essential foundation for buildinga better future for all of us. Especiallyin today’s changing world, ensuringthat every family has food on theirtable no matter what financial cir-cumstances beset them is of utmostimportance.

    Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members ofthis House to vote in favor of this bill,and especially support the efforts toguarantee a decent meal to every fam-ily in Puerto Rico and across the Na-tion. I am very thankful that this farmbill assures this for every American.

    Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from South

    VerDate 26-SEP-2001 01:57 Oct 04, 2001 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K03OC7.022 pfrm04 PsN: H03PT1

  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6177October 3, 2001Dakota (Mr. THUNE), a very activemember of the committee.

    Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thistime.

    Let me just say what has alreadybeen said and that is that America’sfarmers need a new farm bill. I appre-ciate the work that the chairman andthe ranking member on this committeehave done in a bipartisan fashion toput together a bill that is written byproducers and for producers. I appre-ciate the fact that there have beenhours upon hours and pages upon pagesof testimony from producers all acrossthis country; and I want to thank thechairman and ranking member forcoming to Sioux Falls, South Dakota,to my home State, to hear from myconstituents. They have listened toproducers.

    I would also like to thank the chair-man and the ranking member for manyof the good provisions that are in thisbill. We increase substantially ourcommitment to conservation, which issomething that I had wanted made apriority in this bill. Other increases inthe area of value-added agriculture,which is something that people in myState are very interested in, what canwe do to revitalize rural economies.And value-added agriculture is an im-portant component part of that, andthis bill addresses that. Another con-cern that my producers had is a coun-tercyclical payment program and thatis also a part of this piece of legisla-tion. My farmers have expressed sup-port for planting flexibility, somethingthat is retained in this bill.

    Now, granted, there are issues thatwere not addressed in this bill, thingsthat farmers have expressed concernsabout in my State: updating yieldbases, addressing the issue of competi-tion in the marketplace, a farmablewetlands pilot program that was notmade a permanent part of the CRP pro-gram. These are all issues that I hopeto address in the form of amendmentsas this bill moves forward.

    The chairman has kept this com-mittee on a very strict time line andthe farmers of South Dakota thankhim for his diligence.

    This is a small step in what will be avery long process, we know that. Whilethis is not a perfect bill, someonearound here once said that we shouldnot let the perfect become the enemyof the good in a place where we arelucky if the adequate even survives.This is a good start. The farmers acrossthis country need a predictable andstable farm policy. It is important thatwe help them secure America’s food se-curity as we move into the future. Soit is important that we move this proc-ess along.

    Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromMississippi (Mr. SHOWS).

    Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.

    Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strongsupport of the Farm Security Act, farm

    policy that is balanced, bipartisan, andin the best interests of our Nation withits rural and urban families.

    The Farm Security Act assures thatcommunities, farmers, and familiesacross America’s heartland that farmpolicy, which encourages conservation,supports our farmers, and feeds everyfamily, must remain a domestic pri-ority, even under the internationalthreats we face today. Heartland secu-rity and homeland defense walk handin hand. This partnership will remainintact when the House passes H.R. 2646.

    Our strength and power is due in alarge part to having the most abundantand the most affordable food supply inthe world. America’s farm familieshave been doing this for years.

    The Farm Security Act makes sub-stantial increases to conservation pro-grams. The well-crafted conservationtitle increases the number of acres eli-gible for th


Recommended