Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 - Continuing

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? This amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made in the context of the next new farm bill. We'll consider the farm bill next year in an open and transparent manner. We have a committee process that can review the merits of any proposal and all proposals. And they'll be debated and they'll be considered and allowed for the Members to offer their opinions and cast their votes.

In fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under Chairman Peterson's leadership, we made significant reforms. Yes, cuts in the areas, lowering the overall payment caps significantly. But I guess the opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every last marketing tool has been eliminated.

I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream in a 5-year farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They plan to work under current law.

Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill.

And I would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a bold,new, open legislative process. Maybe that's not how you did it in the past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee and on the floor in the same open way we're doing this.

Let the process run its course. Let us work our way through this open process when it should be done in the next farm bill next year. Is that so much to ask?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source