Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that reform had to be achieved across the board.
We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition title.
We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens.
How did we do that?
Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps. We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you qualify.
Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are, but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps.
Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of automatic food stamps.
We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8 billion.
We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help.
We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help those who need the help.
Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated?
I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork, they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify.
But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5 billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall FARRM Bill.
It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most difficult of circumstances.
I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend in other places.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.
I appreciate the intent of the gen tle lady's amendment, which is obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible has been my focus from the very beginning.
That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent.
Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment, farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100 percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need it the most.
I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points:
Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC, they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves.
Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market.
And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be implemented. Every crop is on its own marketing year and every State has a slightly different growing season. Administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. It will tie USDA in knots.
I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's just not use it for this experiment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it. There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how to do that.
Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different amendment.
I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I, too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a systematic way about it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern. I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32 million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set-aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted initiatives.
I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining and eliminating duplicative programs. The result, I believe, is a fair, balanced, and flexible conservation title that addresses the natural resource concerns of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. However, the gentleman's amendment seeks to undo this balance by stripping the EQIP program of the authorities that make it unique.
The EQIP program is arguably the most successful conservation program administered by the NRCS. Through cost share assistance, these programs help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, State, and local environmental regulations.
Known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers depend on EQIP for assistance to build waste storage facilities, eliminate nutrient runoff, and purchase equipment like methane digesters.
The gentleman's amendment would fundamentally change EQIP with arbitrary limits that would reduce livestock producers' participation and restrict the types of conservation programs that could be implemented. With EPA and environmental groups targeting livestock operations, we should not diminish the program's current authorities.
The amendment would make EQIP no different than any other working lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gen tle lady's very sincere interest, and of course our colleague Congressman Hastings' work and concern about pollinator health. He has been a champion on these issues for quite some time.
While we are all aware of the need for Federal cooperation in addressing the issues related to pollinators, I believe this amendment is costly and duplicative.
I am likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority granted to the Secretary to implement new policies without the necessary statutory structure to direct the Secretary's agenda.
I am aware that several constituent groups have raised concerns since this language first surfaced last month as a proposed Boxer amendment to the Senate farm bill, but as yet, few, if any, have had a chance to clearly evaluate it, and none have had a chance to be heard in a hearing process to evaluate their concerns.
I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues otherwise. I would like to work with the both the lady and the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a mutually desirable outcome to address this. When I say ``I'm concerned about the authority given to the Secretary,'' in the language it says:
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry out such activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect and ensure long-term viability of populations.
``Determine.'' I just have concerns about the nature of this language. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the program specifically designed for plant products.
Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of critical programs.
Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must respectfully request that we oppose the amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. I yield to myself, Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes.
The ranking member makes very valid points. When you look at the way Federal crop insurance works, it shifts the risk from the Treasury to the private companies to the reinsurers to the farmers and ranchers. If you look at how these premiums and payments have gone over the last decade--not just the really tough weather last year--you'll find that, in reality, 70 percent of the policies over the last 10 years have not returned one single penny--70 percent.
And if you look at how the program has worked in the 7 years prior to the onset of the drought of 2011, basically the Federal Government actually made money on Federal crop insurance. Now, I can't help the anomaly that the superdrought was in the Midwest. But I can tell you that's a pretty good track record.
The ranking member is entirely right: it works. Let's not mess up something that works. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, let me state the persuasive powers of the gen tle lady are to be much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared. While perhaps not every syllable of her amendments in their present form do I necessarily agree with, I am supportive. I believe she is on the right vein, and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal.
That said, though, I must also express my appreciation to all my colleagues, to the professional staff of both the majority and the professional staff of the minority.
When we started this process earlier, I noted to all of you that I felt like if we would work this in regular order, if we would have discussion and amendment and great debate, we could achieve consensus.
Now, we have approximately five more amendments to go tomorrow. We will conclude this experience on time--hurray--and I believe in a fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means I think we'll pass the bill, but we shall see tomorrow.
That said, thank you all. This is the way the process is supposed to work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source