Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

I want to return for a moment, I think, to the focus of the discussion. I want to be absolutely clear. If this amendment passes, it will--it could incite a trade war. Brazil could immediately impose $800 million in retaliatory tariffs on a variety of U.S. goods.

I promise you, they won't retaliate against U.S. agricultural products. They'll go after ag chemicals and biotechnology products. And they'll go after veterinarian medicines and software and books and music and films. They'll go at everybody outside of production agriculture with their $800 billion in retaliatory tariffs.

Now, we can debate how we got here; and my colleague, the ranking member, gave a very good history of what led us to this point. But this amendment right here, right now would expose the U.S. to job-killing sanctions on goods valued at $800 million.

In 2010, the Obama administration finalized a framework agreement with Brazil that was a critical step in resolving this dispute about the U.S. Upland Cotton Program and export credits. And, yes, under the agreement, Brazil agreed to delay trade sanctions, trade retaliation until the 2012 farm bill was developed and put together. This amendment would circumvent the legislative process in what could only be described as a haphazard way that should be a relic of the past.

This amendment is an attempt to circumvent regular order, the democratic policy process, by changing policy on an appropriation bill. Now, I can assure you, I plan and we will have a full and open process when we start the farm bill debate. We'll debate the relevant issues dealt with in this amendment.

And on that note, I would serve a notice for record that next week, we plan to start the process of conducting an audit of all farm programs. This audit is just the beginning of the comprehensive and transparent process we'll use to draft the 2012 farm bill. Policy changes will be considered carefully with the input from industry stakeholders and constituents and within the larger context of improving the competitiveness and long productivity of American agriculture.

Let's not incite a trade war. Let's return to regular order. And if nothing else, my friends, remember, this bill is 13 percent lower than the previous spending bill. This Ag approps bill takes us almost back to 2006. We are giving our share in this appropriations process. And everyone in this room knows that whether it's the regular farm bill next summer or if we have some grandiose understanding on the national debt ceiling and spending, the deficit, we could well have a farm bill dramatically quicker than next summer, and we'll have a farm bill that reflects a dramatic reduction in resources compared to past farm bills.

Let the Ag Committee in regular order craft the policy, and then when we bring it to the floor--all of our friends, expert ag economists, we all may be together--you will have your shot, as you've had before. But please don't incite a trade war. Please don't ignore the regular order of appropriation authorization. Please be rational in what you do. We've got tough decisions ahead of us. Collin and I and the rest of the committee, we know that. We're going to do what we have to do. But let us do it in regular order, not in this fashion.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would have far-reaching and devastating effects for America's farmers. I'm not sure the gentleman is aware of the full extent of this amendment.

This amendment throws the Noninsured Crop Disaster Program into an arbitrary payment limit scheme. This program, in which farmers pay a fee to obtain crop insurance coverage, protects them from catastrophic events like flooding and tornados. If this amendment passes, farmers who have been flooded out are quite literally up a creek without a paddle. They won't get the coverage they've signed up for even though they've paid in.

This amendment would also affect the permanent disaster program. Producers were required to purchase crop insurance to be eligible for that program. This amendment would be a bait and switch--they've fulfilled their end of the bargain, but we're pulling the rug out from under them now.

There's a time and a place to debate the appropriate level of support for farmers. I welcome that debate as a part of the 2012 farm bill process which will in effect begin next week. The Agriculture Committee will be auditing farm programs for effectiveness and efficiency, and then we will seek input from across the country on the best way to support our farmers and ranchers while making good use of taxpayer dollars.

Discussing farm programs in the context of a farm bill will represent honest, transparent policymaking. This amendment prevents that discussion from taking place by altering the terms of the contracts with farmers once they've already been signed. Protecting farmers during catastrophic weather events is the least we can do to maintain a stable food supply in our country.

My colleagues in the Midwest have seen firsthand the devastation that comes with flooding. My colleagues in the Southwest know how droughts can turn healthy farms into desolation. For that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. But I also urge you to oppose it because policy changes like this should be conducted within the broader context of all farm bill policy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source