Peanut Program: Evolution from Supply Management to Market Orientation

Peanut Program: Evolution from Supply Management to Market Orientation

Order Code RL30924
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Peanut Program: Evolution from
Supply Management to Market Orientation
Updated August 8, 2002
name redacted
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Peanut Program: Evolution from
Supply Management to Market Orientation
Summary
The 2002 farm bill radically overhauls the peanut program, by completely
replacing the supply and price management system in place for more than 60 years.
It repeals the limit set on the amount of peanuts that farmers can sell domestically for
food consumption, and substitutes in large part the revenue this “quota” system with
its high level of price support had guaranteed them, with an infusion of annual
government payments to “historic” peanut producers. The new program’s price
support and income subsidy features (covering the 2002 to 2007 crops) are similar
to those authorized for producers of other crops. These will ensure that “historic”
producers receive a return roughly comparable to what they accessed in the past, after
taking into account they will no longer have to rent or buy quota. Actual returns will
vary among farmers, depending on whether they had produced quota peanuts and had
incurred the additional cost of renting quota. As part of this historic change, owners
of peanut quota will be compensated for elimination of an income-generating asset.
As background, the 1996-2001 peanut program largely kept intact the broad
outlines of previous policy except for two changes. Reflecting a compromise
between growers and shellers (the marketers of peanuts to food manufacturers) and
calls by others for the program’s repeal, Congress in 1996 reduced the quota loan rate
by 10% to $610 per ton. Other changes were intended to ensure the program
operated at “no-cost” to taxpayers. The House during farm bill debate rejected
program opponents’ efforts to modify the Agriculture Committee-reported package
by a 3-vote margin. From 1996 through 1998, program opponents pressed for further
change, but failed in securing passage of amendments offered to agriculture spending
bills. In other action, three emergency farm aid packages in the 1999-2001 period
provided a total of $170 million in supplemental income payments to peanut growers.
Another issue that lawmakers addressed in 2000, and may again face, is whether to
assist growers to cover their share of program losses.
The new program reflects an approach proposed by many peanut farmers in the
Southeast (the largest peanut producing region ) and some in the Southwest who had
concluded that the quota program could not be sustained for political and economic
reasons. They were concerned that the quota system could not be defended much
longer against opponents (food manufacturers and those ideologically opposed to
government management of a food commodity) who had sought for many years to
“reform” the program. These farmers also realized changes were needed to address
competitive pressures from increased peanut and related product imports under the
terms of current and anticipated trade agreements, and that additional budget
resources made available for commodity programs could facilitate a policy change.
With peanuts marketed internationally at a price much lower than the level at
which the past program supported the U.S. price of food peanuts, the peanut quota
structure and import restrictions (by controlling the supply and significantly affecting
the price) placed the cost of the peanut program largely upon the buyers of peanuts
(manufacturers and consumers). The new program’s changes shift these costs largely
to the federal government and taxpayers.

Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
U.S. Peanut Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Features of the 1996-2001 Peanut Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Price Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Income Support to Peanut Growers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Supply Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Poundage Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Import Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Marketing Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Program Administration and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1995-96 Debate on the Peanut Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Peanut Program Legislation in 1997-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bills Introduced in 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
House Floor Amendments Debated During 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity in 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bills Introduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Activation of Loss Sharing Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislative Activity in 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Peanut Program in the 2002 Farm Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Major Provisions of the New Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eligibility for Program Price and Income Support Benefits . . . . 13
Marketing Loan Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fixed Direct Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Counter-Cyclical Income Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Formula for Calculating Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Quota Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Payment Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Program Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rationale for Policy Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Floor Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Conference Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Analyses of New Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Other Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Tables
Table 1. Peanut Loan Rates and Market Assistance Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Program Benefit Levels Available to Peanut Farmers and
Historical Peanut Producers: 2002 Farm Bill, for the 2002-2007 Crops . . . 13
Table 3. Factors for Calculating Annual Payments
to a Historical Peanut Producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4. Commodity Program Payment Limits and Peanuts: Comparison of
Previous Law to the 2002 Farm Bill Conference Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 5. Cost of Enacted Peanut Program
(compared to April 2001 Baseline) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Peanut Program: Evolution from
Supply Management to Market Orientation
Recent Developments
President Bush on May 13, 2002, signed into law a 6-year comprehensive farm
bill (P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Development Act) that includes
authority to support the price of peanuts, to extend income assistance to historical
peanut producers, and to compensate peanut quota holders for the loss of an income-
producing asset (sections 1301-1310). This measure authorizes a much different
peanut program than that in place for more than 60 years, adds and makes changes
to other existing commodity programs, and includes rural development and
environmental programs, among other initiatives.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun to implement some
provisions of the new peanut program. On July 8, USDA announced steps to put into
effect a new peanut quality program. Under the 2002 farm bill, all peanuts marketed
in the United States (irrespective of whether produced domestically or imported)
must be officially inspected and graded by federal inspectors or federally licensed
state inspectors. In the interim while the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
drafts new grading and handling regulations, USDA announced that the requirements
of the current peanut marketing agreement and related programs will continue to
apply; appointed 18 interim members representing producers and the peanut industry
to the newly created Peanut Standards Board (PSB) charged with advising AMS on
the details of the new quality program; terminated the existing Peanut Administrative
Committee responsible for the expiring marketing agreement; and designated trustees
to locally administer the mandatory peanut inspection program until the new
regulations are established. On July 19, Secretary of Agriculture Veneman
announced that historical peanut producers will be asked to update their peanut
acreage history and yield information with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) by
August 5. FSA will use this data to determine each producer’s peanut base and yield
that will serve to calculate the direct and counter-cyclical payments each will receive
in the 2002-2007 period. On August 1, AMS issued a notice requesting nominations
to the PSB, which is required to be in place by November 9.
U.S. Peanut Market
Peanuts are a regional crop, with most production occurring in three areas. In
1999-2001 period, the Southeast (Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina)
accounted for 57% of U.S. peanut output; the Southwest (Texas, Oklahoma, and New
Mexico), 28%; and the Virginia-North Carolina region, 15%. The largest producer
was Georgia, which accounted for 39% of total peanut output, followed by Texas
with 22%. Production is geographically concentrated in each state; accordingly,
peanuts account for a large share of farm and related agribusiness income earned in

CRS-2
a number of peanut-producing counties. According to the Census of Agriculture,
there were 12,211 peanut producers in the United States in 1997, down from 16,194
in 1992. Production nationwide, while fluctuating from year to year due to variable
weather, averaged almost 3.8 billion pounds (1.9 million short tons) annually in the
1999-2001, down from an annual average of 4.3 billion pounds (2.14 million tons)
in 1990-92. Peanut output generated $950 million in cash receipts each year from
1999 to 2001 to farmers, nearly a 28% decline from the $1.3 billion annual average
in the 1990-92 period.

Lower production and cash receipts in the most recent period reflect the impact
of two significant policy changes made by the 1996 farm bill: (1) setting the amount
producers can sell domestically (the “poundage quota”) equal to projected U.S. food
demand,1 and (2) lowering by 10% the support level for peanuts sold to meet U.S.
food demand.2 Higher imports also have contributed to lower receipts. Imports of
peanuts (raw peanuts and the peanut equivalent of peanut butter) in 2000 accounted
for 14% of domestic food use, compared to 2% in 1991. Increased imports reflect
the market access commitments made by the United States under various trade
agreements, and the incentive for other countries to sell into the higher-priced U.S.
market compared to other export alternatives.3
Just over 46% of the 2000 peanut supply was consumed as food domestically.
Of the remainder, 12% was crushed into oil (viewed as a premium cooking oil) and
into meal (used as a protein supplement in livestock feed rations). Sales overseas
accounted for about 11%, with the European Union, Canada, and Japan being major
export markets. Consumption for domestic food use fell an average 2.3% each year
from marketing year (MY) 1989/90 to MY1995/96, largely due to changing
demographics (primarily smaller numbers of children among the baby-boomer
generation), health and dietary concerns about the fat content in peanuts, and
competition from other snack foods that had prompted consumers to shift away from
higher-priced peanut products toward lower-priced snack products. In a reversal of
this trend, starting in MY1996/97, U.S. peanut consumption for food has increased
an average 1.8% each year. Observers speculate that this recent trend might reflect
a decline in concern over fat in foods, a growing awareness by consumers of studies
that show eating peanuts may be beneficial to health, and increased retail promotion
by peanut product manufacturers. Of the peanuts used for domestic food use and
export in MY2000/01, 46% were processed into peanut butter (a staple in American
diets), 22% went into snack peanut products, 22% were used in peanut candy, and
9% were marketed as cleaned in-shell (i.e., ballpark, roasted).
Features of the 1996-2001 Peanut Program
To support the farm price of peanuts, the USDA for the 1996-2001 crops
extended price support benefits to growers, placed a limit on the amount of peanuts
1For more explanation, see Poundage Quotas on page 5.
2For additional information, see Price Support on pages 3-4.
3For details, see Import Restrictions on pages 5-6.

CRS-3
allowed to be sold for domestic food use, and generally restricted imports of foreign
peanuts. The most significant changes made by section 155 of the 1996 farm bill
(P.L. 104-127) reduced the level of minimum price guarantees available on
domestically marketed peanuts (“quota” peanuts) and effectively eliminated the
program’s future budget exposure. The Congressional Budget Office at that time
projected that the detailed changes made to key quota provisions would generate
more than $400 million in budget savings over the FY1997-2003 period. In 1999,
2000, and 2001, Congress authorized $170 million in supplemental income payments
to peanut growers as part of broad financial assistance packages approved for the
agricultural sector.4
The new program enacted by the 2002 farm bill will first apply to the 2002
peanut crop beginning with harvest, which starts in August, without the price
support, poundage quota, and marketing assessment features described below (see
Peanut Program in the 2002 Farm Bill on pages 12 - 18 for details).
Program Overview
The peanut program’s purpose historically has been to support the incomes of
peanut producers and ensure ample domestic peanut supplies. Through the 2001
marketing year, it differed from the grains, rice and cotton programs in that USDA
did not made direct payments to peanut growers (notwithstanding the supplemental
income assistance Congress extended in recent years). Rather, growers’ income has
been supported primarily through USDA actions taken to manage peanut supplies
and by making available the price guarantees set in statute. Unlike the voluntary
nature of USDA’s grain and cotton programs, the peanut program’s features were
mandatory on all farmers if those that produced quota peanuts voted to approve
poundage quotas. In a referendum held December 1997, 94.8% of those voting
favored poundage quotas. As a result, quotas applied to farm marketings of peanuts
through the 2001 crop. The following summarizes the main features of the 1996-
enacted peanut program.
Price Support. Two levels of price support benefits were available to
producers, depending on the end use and destination of the peanuts sold. Benefits
were extended in the form of “non-recourse” loans that USDA extended to three
areawide marketing associations (see Program Administration below).
Non-recourse means that an association pledged the peanuts acquired from growers
(for which a payment is made) as loan collateral. Peanuts marketed for food use in
the United States (“quota” peanuts) were eligible for a high level of price support.
Peanuts exported or crushed into peanut oil and meal (referred to as “additionals”)
were eligible only for a much lower level of support. The higher “quota” support
level reflected the historical premium assigned to peanuts sold domestically into the
high-value edible use market and covered production costs. The lower support level
for additionals reflected the much lower market value of peanuts sold for export or
crushing. Operating under complex procedures, each association (under contract
with USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)) sells and disposes of acquired
quota peanuts at not less than specified price levels, and of acquired additionals at
4See Income Support to Peanut Growers on page 4.

CRS-4
market prices. To the extent that sales did not cover loan proceeds extended to
growers, the difference (“losses”) was made up by tapping association “profits,” with
the remaining losses absorbed by the CCC (until changed by the 1996 farm bill).
As required by statute, the quota loan rate for the 1996-2001 crops was frozen
at $610 per ton (30.5 cents per pound). This change effectively reduced quota
support by 10.1% from 1995's $678.36/ton (33.92 cents/lb.) level. Also, the 1996
farm bill retained the requirement that USDA set the loan rate for additionals at a
level that ensures the CCC does not incur losses from their sale and disposal, and that
also takes into account demand for peanut oil and meal, expected prices of other
vegetable oils and protein meals, and export demand for peanuts. USDA on February
15, 2001, announced that the additionals loan rate for the 2001 crop will be $132 per
ton (6.6 cents/lb.), the same as for the 2000 crops, but $43 less than the $175 per ton
set for additionals marketed from the 1998 and 1999 crops.
Income Support to Peanut Growers. For the 1999, 2000, and 2001 crops,
producers were eligible to receive payments intended to partially compensate growers
for continuing low commodity prices and increasing costs of production (Table 1).
The 1999 crop payment rates spelled out in FY2000 agriculture appropriations
(Section 803(a) of P.L. 106-78) were set equal to 5% of the quota or additional loan
rate. USDA accordingly disbursed $55 million to eligible peanut growers.
Another emergency farm aid package specified the payment rate for the 2000 crop
quota and additional peanuts (Section 204(a) of P.L. 106-224). USDA made $61
million available under this provision in spring 2001. A similar provision was
included in the farm aid package (P.L. 107-25), signed into law August 13, 2001. It
required USDA to disburse $54 million in supplemental payments to peanut growers
by September 30, 2001.
Table 1. Peanut Loan Rates and Market Assistance Payments
LOAN RATE
PAYMENT RATE
TOTAL PROGRAM
BENEFIT a
dollars per ton
1999 CROP
Quota
$610
$30.50
$640.50
Additionals
$175
$8.75
$183.75
2000 CROP
Quota
$610
$30.50
$640.50
Additionals
$132
$16.00
$148.00
2001 CROP
Quota
$610
$25.72
$635.72
Additionals
$132
$13.49
$145.49
a Loan rate plus payment rate

CRS-5
Supply Management. Two mechanisms limited the amount of peanuts
allowed to be sold in the domestic market: the national poundage quota and import
restrictions. Both tools served to manage the amount of peanuts supplied for
primarily U.S. food use.
Poundage Quotas. A national poundage quota limited the quantity of
peanuts that producers sold for domestic consumption (see “buyback” exception
below). The national quota was distributed among eligible states based on each
state’s previous year’s share of the quota, and then distributed by “farm” to quota
holders based largely on past production history. A producer holding or leasing farm
quota received price protection at the high price support level, either by selling to
commercial buyers or effectively transferring ownership of their unsold peanuts to
USDA’s designated marketing agent in return for price support benefits. A farmer
could sell peanuts produced in excess of his farm quota(s) (referred to as “non-quota”
or “additionals”) primarily for export or crushing into peanut oil and meal. A farmer
without a quota could produce as much as he wanted, but was required to market
them as additionals for export or crushing. However, when quota peanuts fell short
in meeting domestic food demand (as a result of lower production due to poor
weather and/or of changing manufacturer preferences for peanut type), any farmer
could sell additionals as quota peanuts under the “buyback” provision. As producers,
shellers, and users adjusted to the new market environment created by the 1996 farm
bill changes, buybacks in the 1996, 1997 and 1998 marketing years accounted for a
much higher share of domestic peanut sales for food than in previous years (about 10-
15% versus 1-3%). Buyback activity in the 1999 and 2000 marketing years fell
significantly, apparently in reaction to farmer concern about the losses they were
forced to absorb as a result of such activity associated with the 1998 crop.
The 1996 law required USDA to announce a national poundage quota equal to
projected U.S. peanut consumption for food and related uses (excluding seed). Use
of this quota tool was intended to guard against a surplus, and to eliminate the
program’s budget exposure. Under previous farm bills, USDA each year was
required to set the national quota (defined then to also include seed use) at not less
than a specified statutory minimum, even if USDA’s projection showed food use
would be lower. The 1996 law eliminated the minimum provision. Under the
revised definition, USDA on December 13, 2000, announced that the 2001 crop’s
national poundage quota will be 1.18 million tons (2.36 billion pounds), the same
level as set for the 1999 and 2000 quota. USDA’s decision to retain the same quota
level for the third consecutive year reflected in part its assessment that (1) domestic
peanut consumption for food had leveled off, and (2) projected increased peanut
imports (allowed to enter under trade agreements) continued to displace
domestically-produced peanuts that otherwise would enter U.S. food marketing
channels. The 2001 quota level represented a 12.6% reduction from the minimum
1.35 million ton national poundage quota that was in effect for the 1991-1995 crops.
Import Restrictions. With peanuts marketed internationally at a price much
lower than the level at which the peanut program supports the U.S. price of food
peanuts, the quantity of peanuts and certain products allowed to enter the U.S. market
to compete with domestic peanut production is restricted. Under multilaterally and
bilaterally negotiated trade agreements, the United States imposes three tariff-rate
quotas (TRQs) on peanut imports. The TRQ based on General Agreement of Tariffs

CRS-6
and Trade (GATT) market access rules permits imports up to a specified level (the
in-quota amount) to enter at a “bound,” or fixed, tariff. Imports under two bilateral
trade agreements enter duty free. Imports above the in-quota in each TRQ also can
enter, but are subject to a very high tariff. This high tariff reflects the protective
value of the previous small absolute quota. With the high above-quota tariff,
foreign-origin peanuts from sources other than Mexico are not expected to be price
competitive in the U.S. market for quite some time. Under the three trade
agreements, U.S. market access commitments mean that the in-quota amount
(compared to the pre-1995 import quota’s 1.7 million pounds) is much larger in 2002
— 126 million pounds, rising slightly each year to reach 127.6 million pounds in
2007. Under the GATT agreement, Argentina is allocated an 83% share of the TRQ.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has duty-free
access to the U.S. market for Mexican-produced peanuts under a quota that gradually
rises through 2008. Afterwards, Mexican-origin peanuts will be allowed to enter in
unlimited quantities. Israel had duty-free access for domestically produced peanuts
under a small TRQ that expires, unless extended, at year-end 2002.
A separate GATT-based import quota also caps U.S. imports of peanut butter
and paste at slightly above the 1993 level. However, imports of peanut butter and
paste from Mexico under NAFTA are exempt from this quota, as long as peanuts
used in these products are grown in Mexico. In general terms, the GATT-based
import quotas are in effect indefinitely; the NAFTA provisions also apply indefinitely
unless the United States or Mexico were to withdraw, upon notice, from the
agreement.
The 1996- and 2002-enacted peanut programs did not amend peanut import
policy under these trade agreements, which continue to be administered under
existing Presidential authority.
Marketing Assessments. A budget deficit marketing assessment applied
only to marketings of domestically produced peanuts. Imports were not subject to
this levy. Assessments collected from growers and “first purchasers” represented the
peanut sector’s contribution to budget deficit reduction targets, imposed in the early
1990s. The assessment rate for the 1997-2002 crops was 1.2% of the “quota” or
“additionals” loan rate, whichever applied. Growers paid 54.2% of the assessment
rate; the first buyers’ share was 45.8%. Under this requirement, USDA collected
about $10-$12 million annually since FY1996 in assessments. As “directed” by
Congress in report language in the FY 1999 agriculture appropriations measure, the
Secretary of Agriculture in January 2000 decided to apply assessments already
collected against the 1996, 1997, and 1998 crops to cover part of the Southeast area
marketing association’s losses as prescribed under a loss sharing mechanism included
in the 1996 enacted program (see Activation of Loss Sharing Provisions).
Program Administration and Costs
Three area marketing associations are involved in administering the peanut
program, acting as agents for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) — the entity
that finances USDA farm programs. These regional associations have kept track of
quota and additional peanuts that are sold, offered price support loan benefits to
farmers, and arranged for warehousing peanuts brought under loan. The CCC has

CRS-7
financed each association’s price support operations and overhead costs with funds
borrowed from the U.S. Treasury. Separately, county offices of the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) have administered poundage quotas, maintained farm data, and
performed other functions by dealing directly with producers and quota holders.
USDA estimated that FSA field administrative costs associated with loan making and
quota management totaled $5.3 million in FY1999.
1995-96 Debate on the Peanut Program
The peanut program enacted as part of the 1996 farm bill largely kept intact the
broad outlines of prior U.S. peanut policy, but addressed two issues – the level of
price support available for quota peanuts and program cost. In hearings held by the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees, growers argued that the program
supported rural economies, urged that its basic structure be maintained, and
suggested a few changes. Peanut shellers and some peanut product manufacturers,
though, argued for significant reductions in the quota price support level. These two
groups argued such a change was critical to the long-term survival of the peanut
industry, and was needed to reverse declining consumer demand for peanut products.
Other food manufacturers and their coalition partners favored outright repeal of the
program, arguing government should not play a role in managing supplies and
dictating prices. Reflecting these divergent views, House floor debate in February
1996 was particularly intense. The Agriculture Committee’s proposed modifications
to the existing program were retained by only a 3-vote margin (212-209). The
closeness of this vote energized program opponents to press for further change in the
floor amendments they offered later in 1996, and again in 1997 and 1998 (see next
section).
The final provisions included aspects of the peanut growers’ proposal, and a
split-the-difference compromise between the 1995 crop’s $678/ton quota loan rate
and peanut shellers’ call for a support level around $550/ton. Reflecting this, the
enacted measure reduced price support on quota peanuts marketed domestically 10%
to $610/ton. While growers in late 1995 had opposed any support reduction,
manufacturers argued that the Committee-proposed reduction was not deep enough
to reverse the decline in domestic peanut consumption. Some food manufacturers
had argued for an even steeper cut - down to $450/ton.
Peanut Program Legislation in 1997-2001
Bills Introduced in 105th Congress
Representatives Shays and Lowey on June 11, 1997, and Senator Santorum on
November 13, 1997, introduced H.R. 1864 and S. 1535, respectively, to phase out the
current peanut program at the end of the 2001 crop year. The House bill was similar
to the amendment that Representative Shays offered during 1996 farm bill floor
debate in February 1996 that was rejected on a 212-209 vote. Both bills proposed to
reduce the $610 per ton price support level for peanuts marketed for domestic food
use (quota peanuts) to $550 for the 1998 crop, $515 in 1999, $480 in 2000, and $445

CRS-8
in 2001. S. 1535 also required USDA to add carryover stocks to projected domestic
food use in determining each year’s national poundage quota level, taking into
account imports, government purchases, and “buyback” activity. Other provisions
permitted the unlimited sale, lease, and transfer of quota across county and state
lines; the sale of additionals also for seed, to U.S. government agencies, and for
domestic food use to offset projected imports; capping the initial disbursement of
loan proceeds to producers at 80% in 1998-2001; and revising the process for sharing
loan losses. Beginning with the 2002 crop, both bills would have made available
non-recourse loans at not more than $350 per ton. H.R. 1864 would also have
authorized loan deficiency payments to be made to producers who choose not to take
out non-recourse loans. With both bills proposing to repeal the current supply
management system effective October 1, 2001, there would no longer have been any
distinction between quota and additional peanuts in administering all price support
operations. Supporters of both bills pointed out that the “Depression-era” program
was anti-competitive, and restricted who can grow and sell peanuts to a small number
of farmers at the expense of consumers. They argued that these proposals provided
for a “fair transition period” for farmers and lenders to adjust to a new market,
following which the peanut program would operate like most other commodity
programs. Supporters of the peanut program countered that changes made by the
1996 farm bill reduced the quota support level by 10% and eliminated all government
costs. They questioned the impetus to debate the program each year and argued that
the 1996-enacted provisions should be given an opportunity to work.
Another measure (H.R. 1875), introduced by Representative Crane on June 12,
1997, proposed to permit U.S. firms to import Mexican peanuts into free trade zones
(FTZs), to be processed into peanut butter and paste for sale in the U.S. market.
Duty-free imports of Mexican peanuts are capped under NAFTA, but there is no limit
on the amount of peanut butter produced from Mexican peanuts that can enter.
According to an AP wire story, the president of the peanut shelling company (which
also operates a peanut butter plant) seeking this change said this proposal would have
put American companies on equal footing with Mexican peanut butter manufacturers,
without forcing them to move to and build new plants in Mexico. Peanut growers
countered, saying that the plan would cost farm jobs because Mexican peanuts
entering a FTZ would displace American-grown peanuts. Their spokesman pointed
out that peanut shellers and manufacturers not located in a proposed FTZ would also
have been at a disadvantage.
House Floor Amendments Debated During 105th Congress
In the late 1990s, opponents of the peanut program turned to the appropriations
process to pursue their objectives. In House floor debate on the FY1998 agriculture
appropriations measure (H.R. 2160), Representative Neumann on July 24, 1997,
offered an amendment that effectively would have required USDA to administer a
peanut program for the 1998 crop with a loan rate for quota peanuts not higher than
$550 per ton. If enacted, this proposal would have reduced the quota price support
level $60 (or almost 10%) from the minimum $610 per ton then available. This
amendment drew from a provision in H.R. 1864 that called for the same amount of
reduction in quota price support. The House rejected this amendment on a vote of
185-242.

CRS-9
During floor debate, supporters of the amendment argued that the “quota”
features of the program limited the supply of peanuts and thus kept the price of
peanuts paid by consumers higher than would be otherwise. Members mentioned
that the domestically-supported price was almost twice the world price of peanuts,
in part because of the added costs that producers incurred in acquiring and/or renting
quota. Two members added that USDA’s implementation of the 1996 farm bill’s
program had “created an artificial government-induced shortage” of peanuts — an
example of “Government price fixing” that ignored consumer interests. Others
argued that the program benefitted an “elite few” — those who owned 68% of the
quota nationwide (according to GAO’s 1993 report) due to inheritance or purchase
but that did not farm peanuts themselves. As a result, they claimed the program
supported quota holders at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.
The amendment’s opponents countered that the 1996 changes ended direct
taxpayer support of the peanut program (saving $434 million over 7 years) and made
it market oriented. Several mentioned that the government’s “contract” made in the
1996 farm bill provided peanut growers with a safety net that should not be violated
and should be allowed to work as enacted. It was pointed out that growers already
had to adjust to a 10% reduction in their support price and must live with that level
now for 7 years without any adjustment for inflation. Several argued that the
proposal represented an effort by large “greedy” food corporations to increase their
profits at the expense of small family farmers and rural communities, claiming that
consumers would not see cheaper peanut butter and candy bars. It was further noted
that even though farmers have already experienced a price cut, manufacturers have
not “passed on one penny” of savings to household consumers.
During House floor debate on the FY1999 agriculture appropriations measure
(H.R. 4101) on July 23, 1998, Representative Neumann again offered an amendment
that would have required USDA to administer a peanut program for the 1999 crop
with a loan rate for quota peanuts not higher than $550 per ton. In the debate that
followed, many of the arguments made in 1997 were again presented. The House
rejected this amendment on a 181- 244 vote.
Legislative Activity in 106th Congress
Bills Introduced. Senator Santorum on April 14, 1999, introduced S. 802
(slightly different from S. 1535 offered in the 105th Congress) to phase out the current
peanut program at the end of the 2001 crop year. Representative Shays introduced
an identical bill (H.R. 2571) on July 20, 1999. These measures would have reduced
the authorized $610 per ton price support level for peanuts marketed for domestic
food use (quota peanuts) to $550 for the 2000 crop and $500 for the 2001 crop.
Quotas would have been eliminated for the 2002 and subsequent year crops. Starting
in 2002, all peanuts produced would have been eligible for non-recourse loans at not
more than $350 per ton. A new section would have amended the National School
Lunch Act to require (upon enactment) that peanuts and products purchased by
USDA for donation under six nutrition programs be bought at prevailing world
market prices, and that such purchases be only of additional (non-quota) peanuts.
The bill’s supporters argued that the proposed changes would “correct the inequities
of the peanut quota system,” result in a price support program similar to that
available for other crops, and enable USDA to purchase lower-priced peanuts for its

CRS-10
nutrition programs. Another measure (H.R. 2598, introduced by Representative Wu
on July 22, 1999) proposed to end the peanut program, effective October 1, 1999.
Peanut growers and product manufacturers met in May 1999 and reportedly
agreed to not battle out their differences in Congress. Reflecting this truce, no
amendment to alter the peanut program was offered during House and Senate
consideration of their respective FY2000 agriculture appropriations bills (H.R. 1906;
S. 1233). A similar agreement affecting consideration of the FY2001 agriculture
spending bill reportedly also was struck between growers and manufacturers.
Floor Action. The FY2000 agriculture appropriations measure included as
part of a broad farm aid package, payments for producers of the 1999 peanut crop as
compensation for low commodity prices and continued increases in peanut
production costs (section 803(a) of P.L. 106-78). Payments were made to producers
on produced quota or additional peanuts equal to 5% of the loan rate set for each
peanut category. A similar provision to provide payments to growers harvesting the
2000 crop was included in the 2000 farm aid package approved by Congress (section
204(a) of P.L. 106-224).5 Taxpayers rather than peanut product manufacturers
covered the cost of these income transfers; the payments made by the U.S. Treasury
to producers had no direct impact on the price that peanut shellers and food
manufacturers paid for peanuts. Separately, to address the impact of 1999 program
losses on Southeast growers, section 2102 of P.L. 106-246 provided a mechanism for
USDA to cover the balance of these losses, to be paid back by growers in future years
(see next section).
Activation of Loss Sharing Provisions
Producer concern about the financial impact that activation of the 1996-enacted
loss-sharing provisions would have on their returns from the 1999 peanut crop led
USDA and Congress to adopt remedies in 2000. More recently, the expectation that
Congress will enact a much different peanut program effective with the 2002 crop
affected the marketing of 2001 quota peanuts. This development is expected to result
in a substantial reduction in the returns that peanut growers receive for the 2001 crop,
and may prompt some to again seek comparable relief.
As background, losses in the Southeast associated with a higher-than-average
portion of the 1999 crop placed under quota loan triggered all eight of the peanut
program’s loss sharing provisions.6 Because these losses were substantial (projected
5See Income Support to Peanut Growers on page 4 for details.
6The pre-1996 “area cross-compliance” provision served to reduce the program’s cost to the
federal government (i.e., as area association and/or CCC-owned peanut inventories were
sold) by requiring producers to offset some of this cost under a complex process. In
practice, sharing losses had pitted regions against each other, as well as growers of
additionals against those that primarily sold quota peanuts. The eight-step process added
by the 1996 farm bill expanded upon and re-prioritized the order in which any losses in an
area quota pool were to be covered. These provisions are found in section 155(d) of the
(continued...)

CRS-11
to reach $60 million), USDA in late 1999 faced pressure from growers to apply the
marketing assessment funds collected in the 1996-98 period to cover in part these
losses. Growers of quota peanuts expressed concern that if the last loss sharing
provision was triggered, they would face paying an assessment of up to $95 per ton
for every ton of 2000 crop quota peanuts marketed, according to USDA estimates.
Further, language in the FY2000 agriculture appropriations conference report
“expect[ed]” USDA to use funds collected but not yet transferred to the U.S.
Treasury to offset these losses. To address this issue, Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman on January 10, 2000, approved the use of $28 million to reduce projected
1999 losses, which in turn, reduced the assessment that Southeast growers faced
paying later in 2000. Even with this decision, assessment funds collected during
FY2000 were not expected to cover the balance of expected 1999 quota peanut losses
($32 million). As a result, quota growers in the Southeast region faced the prospect
of paying an additional assessment in 2000/01. Because such a payment would have
cut into grower income received in the 2000/01 marketing year, some groups
advocated the option of designating the assessments collected in future years to cover
1999 losses. This approach was reflected in a provision included in P.L. 106-246
(section 2101 of Title II, chapter 1) that directed USDA to borrow from the
Commodity Credit Corporation to cover the balance of these losses. At that time,
growers were expected to pay off this “loan”as the CCC collected marketing
assessments from them in 2000, 2001, and 2002 until the entire amount was repaid.
A similar situation has again developed with respect to the 2001 crop. High
peanut yields contributed to a 30% increase in production compared to 2000.
Though USDA expects domestic food consumption (primarily filled by quota
peanuts) to recover somewhat in the 2001/02 marketing year, the prospect of much
lower peanut prices under the new program anticipated last fall to be authorized in
the 2002 farm bill (see below) encouraged buyers to minimize their inventory.
Anticipating that prices in the 2002/03 season could be about half of this year’s level,
shellers cut back on purchases of 2001 crop quota peanuts. Reflecting the decline in
the price of quota peanuts, farmers in the Southeast as of late January 2002 had
placed about 20% of their quota peanuts under loan. With no buyers for this sizable
quantity of high-priced peanuts, the prospect has increased that producers will
experience a loss as the areawide marketing associations sell these peanuts at much
lower prices into the export or crushing markets. As the loss sharing provisions take
effect, available resources (including the marketing assessments collected and
intended to repay 1999 crop losses) will not be sufficient to cover projected losses.
According to one estimate, the financial loss that growers in the Southeast face
ranges between $140 to $180 per ton, if the eighth loss sharing provision is activated.
Peanut producers in other producing regions also reportedly face absorbing losses,
which are expected to be much lower – under $10 per ton.
6(...continued)
1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127; 110 Stat. 924-925; 7 U.S.C. 7271(d)). Though complex, these
changes in the process to be followed to cover losses within and between associations were
intended to place greater responsibility for absorbing losses on those individual producers
and regions that actually generate them. Depending on other decisions that USDA makes,
the cumulative impact of this prioritized loss-sharing mechanism was intended to bring
program costs down to zero.

CRS-12
Legislative Activity in 107th Congress
Peanut Program in the 2002 Farm Bill
The 2002 farm bill provides for a radically new peanut program framework
(sections 1301-1310 of P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002). The completely overhauled program repeals the quota system in place
since the 1930s that limited the amount of peanuts allowed to be marketed for
domestic food use, replacing it with an approach similar to that found in the
programs available for other crops that extend price and income support to producers.
The new peanut program replaces the revenue that the prior supply management
structure (using farm-level quotas) with its high level of price support had guaranteed
farmers, with a large infusion of direct government payments. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the new program will cost almost $2.9
billion over the farm bill’s authorized six-year period.
The enacted peanut program effectively transfers the cost of the peanut program
from consumers (primarily food manufacturers) to the federal government. Under
the pre-2002 policy, manufacturers paid higher prices for food-use peanuts because
of the program’s two-tier price support structure, a restrictive import quota that
protected the peanut production sector from foreign competition, and the restriction
on the sale of domestically produced peanuts for U.S. food use by farmers with no
quota.
Major Provisions of the New Program. The 2002 farm bill completely
restructures the previous peanut program to make available to growers of peanuts the
same type of price support and income subsidy benefits that producers of wheat, feed
grains, cotton, rice, and soybeans will also receive. The three components of the
redesigned peanut program are:
! marketing loan benefits (non-recourse loans or corresponding payments),
! fixed direct payments, and
! counter-cyclical deficiency payments.
Table 2 provides the level of program benefits available under each component.
Benefit eligibility and additional details on each component are described in the
following sections. According to the farm bill’s timetable, USDA will make the first
direct and counter-cyclical payments to historic peanut producers this fall.
Another significant program feature are the peanut program payment limits that
will apply per farm or per individual. These are separate and in addition to the limits
that apply to payments made per farm on the production of other eligible crops. All
but one of the enacted provisions apply to the 2002 to 2007 crops.
As part of this historic restructuring, the 2002 farm bill will compensate owners
of the peanut quota, many of whom are not peanut farmers, for the loss of an income-
producing asset.

CRS-13
Table 2. Program Benefit Levels Available to Peanut Farmers
and Historical Peanut Producers:
2002 Farm Bill, for the 2002-2007 Crops
POLICY OBJECTIVE / PROGRAM TOOL
$ per ton
¢ per pound
Price Support / Loan Rate
355
17.75
Basic Subsidy / Direct Payment
36
1.80
Supplemental Income Subsidy /
495
24.75
derived relative to Target Price of
Eligibility for Program Price and Income Support Benefits. Under the
new program, all producers of peanuts will be eligible to receive marketing loan
benefits on each year’s crop. However, only historical peanut producers (e.g., those
who were actively involved in planting and harvesting peanuts in the 1998-2001
period) will be eligible to receive direct payments and counter-cyclical assistance
each year, irrespective of whether or not they continue to produce peanuts. These
payments will be made on past production on historical acreage, not on current
production (see Formula for Calculating Payments below).

Marketing Loan Benefits. Any peanut farmer will be eligible for non-
recourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments, calculated against
a loan rate of $355 per ton for all peanuts produced. In practice, a producer would
pledge harvested peanuts as collateral to obtain a non-recourse loan at this rate from
the Farm Service Agency or other designated entities. The availability of such a loan
effectively provides operating capital to the producer until the loan is repaid one of
three ways: (1) with interest within 9 months if the market price is above the loan
rate, (2) without interest at a USDA-determined price (“loan repayment rate”) if
market prices are below the loan rate, or (3) by the transfer (forfeit) by the producer
of the pledged peanuts to the CCC as full settlement of the loan at the end of the loan
term with no penalty. Under the second option, the difference between the USDA-
determined price and the loan rate received by the producer is called a marketing loan
gain. Provisions stipulate that USDA must set this loan repayment rate at a level that
minimizes loan forfeitures, the accumulation of peanut stocks, and USDA storage
costs; and allows U.S.-produced peanuts to be marketed freely and competitively
both domestically and internationally. Alternatively, instead of taking out a non-
recourse loan, a producer may elect to receive a loan deficiency payment that is equal
to the marketing loan gain.7
Fixed Direct Payments. A producer with a history of producing quota
and/or additional peanuts will receive annual fixed direct, payments of $36 per ton.
These payments (not linked to either current production or prices) will be similar to
the production flexibility contract payments first made to producers of wheat, corn
7For additional background on this price support mechanism, see CRS Report 98-744 ENR,
Agricultural Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments.

CRS-14
and other feed grains, cotton and rice under the 1996 farm bill,8 and modified
somewhat by the 2002 farm bill. Payments will be made only to a farmer who grew
peanuts in 1998-2001, even if he now or in the future decides not to produce peanuts
and/or shifts to grow other permitted crops. The amount of the payment made to an
eligible farmer will be the same each year for the program’s duration, and be based
on a statutory formula (see Table 3 and Formula for Calculating Payments).
Counter-Cyclical Income Assistance. A producer with a history of
producing quota and/or additional peanuts will also receive supplemental income
subsidies in the form of “counter-cyclical” payments each year when the “effective
price” is less than the “target” price of $495 per ton. These payments are designed
to provide more government support when peanut prices decline, and less income
support when prices improve. They are intended to automatically supplement other
subsidies available under the new program, such as marketing loan benefits and fixed
direct payments. Counter-cyclical payments (subject to a reduction for direct
payments received) will be triggered when the national average market price for
peanuts is below $495 per ton. Payments will be made only to a farmer who grew
peanuts in 1998-2001, even if he now or in the future decides not to produce peanuts
and/or shifts to grow other permitted crops. The amount of the deficiency payment
made to an eligible farmer will be the same each year for the program’s duration, and
be based upon a statutory formula (see Table 3 and Formula for Calculating
Payments).9
Formula for Calculating Payments. Three factors will be used to calculate
the amount of fixed direct and counter-cyclical payments that each historic peanut
producer will receive. Payments will be equal to a recipient’s farms’ payment yield,
multiplied by 85% of his farms’ average peanut acres (defined as “payment acres”),
further multiplied by the program component’s payment rate (Table 3). USDA will
derive each recipient’s average yield and acreage factors, using available data
showing the peanut yield and acreage planted to peanuts or prevented from being
planted for each of a producer’s farms in the 1998-2001 crop years. Once calculated,
each historical producer will have a one-time opportunity through March 31, 2003,
to assign these yield and acreage results to cropland on a farm of his choice.
Payments based on this formula will be made only to historic peanut producers, even
if they decide not to grow peanuts or shift to producing another permitted crop.
8The Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA, Title I of P.L. 104-127) offered multi-year
production flexibility “contracts” to producers with land previously enrolled in a target price
deficiency payments program for these crops. AMTA earmarked a specific amount of funds
for contract payments to be made over 7 years in fixed but declining annual amounts, and
was intended to stabilize and constrain commodity program entitlement spending. The
objective was to break the tie between payments and: market prices, the planting of a
specific crop, or annual cropland diversion requirements. Payments to an individual
participant were based on his established acreage and yield (per-acre output) under the old
programs. The rules allowed a participant starting in 1996 to plant almost any combination
of crops on contract acreage. The only other restrictions affecting producer eligibility were
that contract land must be used for agricultural purposes, that fruits and vegetables generally
cannot be produced on such land, and that conservation rules must be followed.
9For additional background on this policy tool, see CRS Report RS20913, Farm “Counter-
Cyclical Assistance”.

CRS-15
Table 3. Factors for Calculating Annual Payments
to a Historical Peanut Producer
Recipient’s Payment Yield a
X
Recipient’s Payment Acres (Peanut Acres b x 85%)
Payment Rate Equal to
the Effective Price, derived as:
(1) the difference between the target price
X
of $495 per ton, and
$36 per ton
(2) the national average market price,
or c
$391,
whichever is higher
=
DIRECT FIXED PAYMENT
COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS
a The average of the peanut yield (pounds per acre) associated with each of a producer’s farms
in the 1998-2001 crop years, excluding any year in which production did not occur.
b The average of the planted acreage associated with each of a producer’s farms in the 1998-
2001 period, including any acres prevented from planting because of a natural disaster or
condition beyond the producer’s control.
c Equal to the loan rate ($355) per ton plus the fixed decoupled, or direct, payment rate of $36
per ton.
Quota Compensation. Holders of peanut quota in 2001 will be compensated
at the annual rate of 11¢ per pound, or $220 per ton. Over the five years of
authorized compensation, quota holders will receive 55¢ per pound, or $1,100 per
ton. These payments are intended to compensate owners for the loss of an income-
producing asset that they either inherited or purchased. The conference agreement
permits any holder the option to receive this compensation in the form of one lump
sum payment. About two-thirds of the quota compensation is expected to be paid out
to individuals and entities that did not themselves produce peanuts, but instead rented
quota in 2001 to other farmers.10
Payment Limitations. Because the new peanut program replaces the high
market prices guaranteed by the quota feature of the previous peanut program with
marketing loan benefits and payments, the issue of payment limits received
considerable attention as conferees sought to resolve differences between House and
Senate provisions. Since many peanut producers also grow other crops in rotation
with peanuts and receive payments under these other commodity programs, the terms
of and the payment limit level set in the 2002 farm bill affected their view of how
they might fare under a radically restructured peanut program. In other words,
decisions legislated on these matters would affect the maximum amount of
10This breakdown is based on the results of a 1991 cost-of-production survey, which showed
that two-thirds of the peanut poundage quota then was rented, and that producers owned
about one third of the quota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Peanuts: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation, April 1995, pp. 2, 14.

CRS-16
government payments and loan benefits that farm operations that grow peanuts would
receive under any policy change.
The House peanut program explicitly provided (section 169 of H.R. 2646) that
the limits on peanut program payments to an individual and/or entity would be
separate and in addition to the aggregate limit now in place on payments made under
all of the grains, cotton, and oilseeds programs. Recipients of peanut program
payments would be subject to the same rules and eligibility criteria (i.e., the three
entity rule, spouse allowance, use of marketing certificates) that applied to producers
receiving payments for other crops. The Senate farm bill (section 169 of S. 1731),
by contrast, proposed to subject the payments of all eligible crops (including peanuts)
to one combined annual limit per individual and/or entity. It also would have
tightened the rules and eligibility criteria for receiving program payments. Both
measures explicitly stipulated that the quota compensation payments proposed for
peanut quota owners would not be subject to either set of payment limits and
conditions.
The House approach calling for a separate peanut payment limit acknowledged
that some larger farm operations (e.g., those that grow both cotton and peanuts)
would very quickly reach the current payment limit. To ensure that the peanut
producing portion of these large farms could fully benefit from payments available
under the proposed new program, proponents succeeded in including a separate limit
for peanut payments. Senate-approved provisions, however, included a lower
aggregate limit and more stringent eligibility criteria on payments made to an
individual/entity or married couple under all commodity programs (including the new
peanut program). The Senate position reflected the philosophical view that the
raising of payment caps and liberalizing of eligibility rules over time (i.e., to
circumvent them, according to supporters of limits) has encouraged the growth of
large farms and helped to drive small- and mid-sized farms out of business. Those
opposed to this trend further argued that farm programs have benefitted most a small
group of large producers and a large number of absentee landlords who need aid the
least.11 To counter the Senate provisions, House opponents argued the lower limits
would make the new peanut program “ineffective.” Their view is that large
peanut/cotton operations would not be able to fully maximize benefits under both
programs if the Senate provisions become law.
In final action, farm bill conferees agreed to make the payment limits separate
and in addition to the same limits that will also apply to payments made under the
grains, cotton, and oilseeds programs that a peanut producer can receive if eligible
for them. The limit on peanut program payments, and also separately under the other
“program” crops, is $180,000 per person, per year (or $360,000 under the 3-entity
and spouse allowance rules). Benefits are higher for those operations that use
commodity certificates and loan forfeiture gains to access additional marketing loan
11For additional information, see CRS Report RS21138, Farm Commodity Payment Limits:
Comparison of Proposals, and CRS Report RL31272, A New Farm Bill: Comparing the
House and Senate Proposals with Current Law, April 12, 2002, pp. 9-11.

CRS-17
Table 4. Commodity Program Payment Limits and Peanuts:
Comparison of Previous Law to the 2002 Farm Bill Conference
Agreement
CONFERENCE
PREVIOUS LAW
AGREEMENT
Not applicable to peanuts
Peanut payment limit is
separate and in addition to
Overview
the limit on grains, cotton,
and oilseed program
payments.
a
Marketing Loan Benefits
$150,000
$75,000 b
Fixed Decoupled, or Direct,
$40,000
Payments
$80,000
Counter-Cyclical Payments
$65,000
Total Per Person
$230,000
$180,000
3 Entity Rule /
$230,000 $180,000

Spouse Allowance
Total Limit
$460,000
$360,000 c
Note: See footnotes 10 and 11 for sources of additional information
a Marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments.
b There is no practical limit, in that a producer can use commodity certificates and loan
forfeiture gains to bypass the stated limitation.
c To illustrate, a large peanut and cotton farm would be eligible for payments equal to double
the amount shown for each type of payment and rule. A very large operation producing both
crops (and organized to maximize the receipt of program benefits) would be eligible for
$720,000 in payments. However, with no effective limit on marketing loan benefits (see
footnote b), payments under the cotton and peanut programs can be higher than this limit.
benefits. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the newly-authorized payment limitation
(by category), and compares them to the prior law’s limits for program crops.12
Program Cost. Converting the pre-2002 peanut program to one designed to
operate similar to the price and income support programs for other crops will involve
considerable budgetary expense. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects
that the 6-year cost of the enacted peanut program (relative to the April 2001
baseline) will be $2.87 billion (Table 5). Over the 10-year budget period used to
score the farm bill, CBO projects the new program will cost $3.9 billion.
Over the farm bill’s authorized 6-year period, the quota compensation
component will account for 45% of the peanut program’s entire cost. If the amount
authorized to compensate quota owners is excluded from this cost projection, current
and historic peanut producers will receive an average $249 million annually in
12For more on this issue, see the CRS Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Electronic Briefing
Book page entitled “Commodity Program Payment Limits Under the 2002 Farm Bill.”

CRS-18
payments and marketing loan benefits. Concerned that growers would have to absorb
the storage costs associated with peanuts placed under loan, farm bill conferees
addressed this issue by directing USDA to use CCC funds to pay storage, handling,
and related costs through the 2006 peanut crop. CBO estimates budget outlays for
such storage costs will total $74 million.
Table 5. Cost of Enacted Peanut Program
(compared to April 2001 Baseline)
SIX YEARS
TEN YEARS
(FY2002-2007)
(FY2002-2011)
millions of $
Marketing Assistance Loans
287
495
Counter-Cyclical Payments
828
1,435
Direct Payments
378
628
Storage Costs
74
74
Treatment of Crop Insurance Policies
3
3
for 2002
SUBTOTAL, PROGRAM BENEFITS
1,570
2,635
Quota Compensation
1,300
1,300
TOTAL
2,870
3,935
Note: Peanut program costs (excluding quota compensation payments) are expected to be
about $500 million more during the FY2002-2006 period than shown in this table, according to
an estimate prepared by CBO using its most recent (March 2002) baseline.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, May 1, 2002 estimate
Rationale for Policy Change. The enacted peanut program is based on the
approach offered by a coalition of peanut farmers from the Southeast and west Texas
who had concluded that the program structure in place for more than 60 years could
not be sustained for political and economic reasons. This group was concerned that
the quota system could not be defended much longer against opponents (food
manufacturers and those ideologically opposed to government management of a food
commodity) who had sought for many years to “reform” the program. These farmers
also realized changes were needed to address competitive pressures from increased
peanut and related product imports under U.S. commitments made in current trade
agreements (particularly under NAFTA, which has opened the U.S. market to
Mexican origin peanuts, peanut butter, and peanut products). Peanut shellers and
food manufacturers supported this change, viewing the coalition’s proposal as
accomplishing their longstanding objective of reforming the peanut program and
gaining access to lower-priced peanuts.
Peanut growers from the Southeast, central Texas and the Virginia-North
Carolina region opposed to the marketing loan concept, however, advocated another

CRS-19
approach they felt would better stimulate consumption of U.S.-produced peanuts.
They favored continuing a two-price system, and making a few changes to the quota
program. Under their proposal, producers that sell quota peanuts would have
received price support at a higher level than available under the quota program.
Purchasers, though, would have been able to buy these peanuts at the much lower
world price, and USDA would have made up the difference. To illustrate, if the farm
bill set the support price at $650 per ton and the world price was $350 per ton, USDA
would have covered the difference with a $300 per ton payment to the farmer.13
Both groups developed their respective proposals to facilitate their desired
policy change seeing the opportunity to tap the additional $73.5 billion in multi-year
budget resources made available by the FY2002 budget resolution for agricultural
commodity programs.
Adding pressure for change, House opponents of the program signaled in mid-
June 2001 they would introduce their proposal (H.R. 2164) during farm bill debate
if the House Agriculture Committee did not “reform” the peanut program. Their bill
proposed to reduce the loan rate for all peanuts to not more than $350 per ton by
2004 (i.e., 43% below the $610 per ton loan rate for quota peanuts), repeal the quota
system altogether starting with the 2004 crop (with no compensation to quota
holders), and require the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase peanuts and peanut
products for nutrition programs at a lower price. H.R. 2164 would have substantially
reduced the level of program benefits available to peanut farmers and quota owners,
and thereby benefitted consumers (primarily food manufacturers), who would pay a
lower price for peanuts. Other changes proposed in H.R. 2164 would have largely
eliminated program costs after 2004.
Floor Consideration. Members offered five amendments during floor
consideration to modify the House and Senate Agriculture Committee’s reported
farm bill (H.R. 2646; S. 1731). Some addressed regional issues, one focused on the
divisive issue in Georgia over whether quota owners were being fairly compensated
for the loss of their quota, while others sought to clarify the future relationship
between peanut growers and other key participants in the peanut industry. One
Senate amendment proposed to terminate the peanut program after 2005.
The House by voice vote on October 3, 2001, agreed to an amendment offered
by Representative Stenholm to retain a role for the area marketing associations14 in
administering the new program. Representative Etheridge on October 4 proposed to
raise the target price against which counter-cyclical payments would be calculated
from $480 to $500 per ton. He subsequently withdrew his amendment. Senator
Inhofe on February 12, 2002, proposed to start the new program with the 2003 rather
than 2002 crop; he later withdrew his amendment. The Senate by voice vote also on
February 12 agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Miller to increase the quota
compensation rate from 10 to 11 cents per pound (modified from an earlier proposal
to raise the rate to 12 cents/lb.), to clarify the role of area marketing associations with
13This description is based on “Peanut Policy Update,” May 7, 2001, by Nathan B. Smith,
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.
14See Program Administration and Costs on pages 6-7 for background on these
associations.

CRS-20
respect to peanut storage and the handling of peanut “marketing pools,” to subject the
imposition by these associations of certain overhead expenses and by other loan
servicing agents of storage costs to a state-level referendum vote by historic
producers, and to require that all peanuts placed under a marketing assistance loan
be subject to state or federal inspection and grading, among other changes.15
Senator Lugar offered an amendment that would have completely phased out the
peanut program (together with the current income and price support provisions for
other commodities) after the 2005 crop. The level of price support would have been
“progressively and uniformly” lowered starting with the 2003 crops and reach zero
in 2006. During this period, USDA would have increased the quota in phases to
anticipate its elimination effective with the 2006 crop. Price support would have
been replaced with vouchers of up to $30,000 made available annually through 2006
to any producer who signed a “risk management contract,” and undertook specified
risk management activities. Examples include buying whole farm revenue insurance
and/or contributing to a whole farm stabilization account. This voucher system
would have applied to all commodity (and not just peanut) producers. His proposal
was defeated (70-30) during Senate farm bill floor debate on December 12, 2001.
Conference Action. House and Senate negotiators charged with resolving
differences between the peanut provisions in their respective farm bills considered
them in an atmosphere of mounting pressure in March and April 2002 that they also
reach decisions on various far-reaching issues so that final provisions apply to the
2002 crops. Farmers and their lenders, facing planting and financing decisions,
expressed concern over whether the quota program or the radically different new
program would apply to the 2002 crop that was about to be planted. In south
Georgia, this usually begins in early May. Further, program-specific issues that
conferees debated included settling upon the level of budget resources to allocate for
the proposed peanut program change, reaching agreement on differences over the
level of program benefits (i.e., price support, income assistance, and quota
compensation levels) to provide, and determining the payment limits and
accompanying terms that should apply to the financial benefits that peanut producers
receive under the new program.
House and Senate conference leaders on March 19, 2002, reportedly agreed to
allocate $2.6 billion for the peanut, sugar, and dairy program provisions added by the
Senate’s farm bill. Of this total, one account mentioned that they had set aside $500
million for the higher 10-year costs associated with the Senate’s peanut program.16
This issue of budget resources for the new peanut program remained in flux until
conferees reached final agreement on a multitude of farm bill provisions on April 30.
15In the farm bill conference, negotiators retained the Stenholm amendment, accepted
Miller’s increase in the quota compensation rate to 11 cents per pound, and addressed the
other issues raised in the Miller amendment by authorizing CCC funding to cover storage
costs for peanuts placed under loan, and subjecting all peanuts marketed in the United States
to one uniform set of inspection and grading standards.
16AgWeb.com, Inside Washington Today, “Update: Several steps back for farm bill
'progress'” by Jim Wiesemeyer, March 27, 2002.

CRS-21
Analyses of New Program. A General Accounting Office (GAO) analysis
of the House Agriculture Committee’s approved peanut program showed that new
and existing producers would benefit more from the new support mechanisms than
they would under a continuation of the quota program and its relatively high support
level. Its report stated that peanut shellers, food manufacturers, and consumers
would pay less because of the much lower support level. The lower prices, though,
would be offset by a substantial increase in USDA outlays to maintain producer
income. GAO also expected that the new support measures will reduce incentives
for increased imports.17
An initial analysis by USDA’s Economic Research Service similarly points out
that the production incentives created by the 2002 farm bill’s peanut and other
commodity programs “will vary among different types of producers” (e.g., whether
a farmer had produced primarily quota peanuts or produced additional peanuts, or
whether the farmer has no history of peanut production).18 The factor identified as
key in influencing if a farmer plants peanuts is whether expected program benefits
and/or the projected peanut market price cover the variable costs associated with
producing peanuts.19 Another issue some farmers will consider (looking at both
market prices and program benefits) is whether producing peanuts results in higher
returns compared to producing other crops.
Some observers expect that peanut producers, shellers, and food manufacturers
will proceed cautiously in adapting to the peanut program changes. Since sales of
peanuts in the United States have never been subject to the same market forces that
other crops have been for years, analysts can only speculate at this time what the farm
and wholesale price of food-use peanuts might be, and how that will over time affect
producers’ and users’ decisions on producing and purchasing peanuts, respectively.
Observers will also be watching to see the extent to which food manufacturers
(operating in a new program and marketing environment) pass on savings from
paying much less for peanuts to retail consumers.
Other Legislative Action
The FY2001 emergency farm aid package enacted by Congress and signed by
the President on August 13, 2001, authorized market loss payments to peanut
farmers. Section 3 of P.L. 107-25 (H.R. 2213) provided $54.21 million in
supplemental payments to growers that had produced 2001 crop quota and additional
peanuts. Section 11 required USDA to make these supplemental payments by
September 30, 2001. The impact of these payments on overall support of peanut
producers is reflected in Table 1.
17Peanut Program: Potential Effects of Proposed Farm Bill on Producers, Consumers,
Government, and Peanut Imports and Exports, GAO-01-1135R, September 26, 2001.
18USDA, ERS, “Farm Bill 2002: Analysis of Selected Provisions: Peanuts,” June 21, 2002
(available on the Web at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/FarmBill/Analysis/peanut2002act.htm]).
19Variable costs are the out-of-pocket cash expenses paid for inputs unique to the commodity
being produced. Variable expenses depend on production practices and on quantities and
prices of inputs. These include inputs such as seed, fertilizer, feed, chemicals, and hired
labor.

CRS-22
Additional Reading
Farm Foundation. The 2002 Farm Bill: Policy Options and Consequences. “Peanut
Policy” by Stanley M. Fletcher and Nathan B. Smith. September 2001.
(Available on the Web in pdf format at
[http://www.farmfoundation.org/2002_farm_bill/fletcher.pdf])
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. The House and Senate Farm Bills:
A Comparative Study, FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-02, March 2002, pp.
14-16.
Presentations made at a conference entitled “The New Farm Bill-Peanuts and More”
held May 15, 2002, in Tifton, Georgia. “Legislative Background of the 2002
Farm Bill,” by Evans Plowden, American Peanut Shellers Association; “Peanut
Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002" by Nathan
Smith, University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences; and “Opportunities Under the New Marketing Loan Program for
Peanuts” by Richard Pasco, American Peanut Product Manufacturers, Inc.
(Available on the Web at [www.gapeanuts.com] - scroll down to see list)
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service (ERS). Commercial
Agriculture Division. Peanuts: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation, by
Scott Sanford and Sam Evans. Agricultural Economic Report No. 710. Apr.
1995. 34 p. (Available on the Web at
[http://ewg.org/farm/peanuts/docs/ERS_Peanuts1995.pdf])
——. Agricultural Outlook. “Peanut Consumption Rebounding Amidst Market
Uncertainties.” March 2002. Pp. 3-5 (available on the Web in pdf format at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/Mar2002/ao289a.pdf]).
——. “Analysis of Peanut Program Provisions in 2002 Farm Bill,” by Erik Dohlman
(available on the Web at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/FarmBill/Analysis/peanut2002act.htm]).
U.S. General Accounting Office. Peanut Program: Potential Effects of Proposed
Farm Bill on Producers, Consumers, Government, and Peanut Imports and
Exports. GAO-01- 1135R. September 26, 2001. (Available on the Web in pdf
format at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011135r.pdf])

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.