Charles W. Stenholm: “Reclaiming my time, I would love to see that information because that certainly is contrary to anything that I have…”

“Reclaiming my time, I would love to see that information because that certainly is contrary to anything that I have seen. Marketing certificates, which I believe this is aimed at limiting, have been around for 14 years. They have been used for a very good purpose, and that is to avoid building up CCC stocks. The effect of the gentleman's amendment would simply be to build-up stocks, because to equate the loan with a price support cash payment is totally fallacious. This is not the way that marketing certificates work. What we try to do is avoid CCC build-up of stocks. If we are going to make it ineligible, if we want to make them ineligible for loans, that is one thing, but that is not what the gentleman is attempting to do. I do not believe that that is what his intent is; but the amendment before us does not do that, which I believe the gentleman is saying that it does. Market certificates avoid market disruptions caused by payment limits. When you run up against that payment limit, then we have one choice. We put it into the loan, and then the government pays us for it or we then market it. Under the theory of the Freedom to Farm Act of which as we held the hearings last year, farmers loved the Freedom to Farm, but they do not like the results, the price. This is a fundamental change in the direction of farm programs. Fundamental. If one wants to go down that route, then vote for the gentleman's amendment.”