PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Oct 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
South Carolina Peanut Parity Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to add South Carolina to the Virginia/Carolina peanut producing region for the purpose of appointing members of the Peanut Standards Board.
(Under current law, the region includes Virginia and North Carolina. The board advises the Department of Agriculture regarding the establishment of quality and handling standards for domestically produced and imported peanuts.)
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 394 - 1 (Roll no. 591). (text: CR H8284)
House roll call 591 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 394 - 1 (Roll no. 591).(text: CR H8284)
House roll call 591 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8285-8286)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2521.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8284-8285)
Mr. Crawford moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 256.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-352.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-352.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E662)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2521 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2521 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2521 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2521 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.