Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. I have an amendment at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one I've taken to calling the ``Spending Safeguard'' amendment, because it will protect taxpayers in the event CBO predictions relating to the Farm Risk Management Election program are horribly wrong.
This particular program is basically an expansion of overly generous crop insurance subsidies for producers, and it's predicted to cost about $23 billion over 10 years. But it could potentially cost more--much more. That's because the program's costs are linked to high target price estimates that well exceed historical averages. If prices fall, taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference.
As many of us are aware, the 2008 farm bill cost taxpayers 51 percent more than its drafters predicted. None of us, from Members of Congress to the budget wizards at CBO, can predict the future. That is why we must put a safeguard in place to prevent unappropriated spending from eating taxpayers alive.
My amendment will cap spending on this program at 110 percent of CBO predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are dispersed--fiscal years 2016 through 2020. If CBO predictions are reasonably accurate, nothing will happen; but if the predictions are horribly wrong, this amendment ensures taxpayers won't be forced to pay for another costly Washington mistake.
This is a simple amendment, but one that I hope will set an important precedent. If Congress creates new mandatory spending programs, it must put a mechanism in place to make sure costs don't spiral out of control.
As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we simply can't afford to create new, open-ended, mandatory spending programs and set them on autopilot.
When I talk to constituents about the Federal budget, nearly all are puzzled by the concept of mandatory spending. Virtually no one of any political stripe can understand the idea of creating a law one year that imposes an unlimited, unchecked, unaccountable lien on the Treasury for all time.
Even with all the handwringing over the discretionary spending reductions called for in sequestration, we all know that, in the end, budgetary problems on the spending side of the ledger will never be resolved until we confront mandatory spending.
My amendment quells all of the uncertainties created by mandatory spending with one beautifully simple proposal that, for the first time in the memory of everyone we've talked to, puts a finite number on an otherwise infinite liability.
To be clear, this amendment applies only to one single provision--the Farm Risk Management Election program. It does not apply to SNAP and will not affect food stamp benefits or other mandatory spending programs in any way.
My amendment will safeguard taxpayers if the Farm Risk Management Election program ends up costing significantly more than advertised, prevent automatic and unappropriated spending under this program from skyrocketing, and set a striking new precedent for fiscal responsibility.
This amendment should pass with broad, bipartisan support, Mr. Chairman. Over the past few days, I've noticed that many of my Democratic colleagues share my concern about the uncertain budgetary impacts of this program. Republicans and Democrats alike should rally around this idea, which simultaneously protects taxpayers and ensures the fiscal viability of this program.
The time has come to put an end to reckless, unchecked, mandatory spending programs in the farm bill. This amendment may make those unaccustomed to the way things are done uncomfortable, but the simple truth is that the way things are done just doesn't work anymore--in fact, it never has.
Congresses of old had no problem creating obligations for future generations to fulfill. Today we have an opportunity to change course, to set things right, to take the first step toward reining in out-of-control mandatory spending. I urge my colleagues to take this step with me and support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am really disappointed in the chairman of the Agriculture Committee's response to this amendment. This is a really good amendment that will help us be able to predict in the future how much money is going to be spent. It will hold the CBO accountable.
If the numbers presented to us are accurate, this will never hit. I believe the chairman did not dispute my comments that the last farm bill went over budget 51 percent. We are constantly hearing that the CBO predicted something and comes in with a totally different number.
If by any chance the CBO is wrong here, then the chairman will do good work in getting us to understand why more money needs to be appropriated for these programs.
I applaud the chairman for what he has done, identifying problems and appropriate solutions, but this is a good amendment. It deserves to be passed, it has bipartisan support, and it will take us in the right direction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan once said:
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government's programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.
Mr. Chairman, it's hard to argue with the Gipper.
This amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management, FARRM, Act of 2013, will bring accountability to our work here in the House of Representatives. What it does is it sunsets discretionary programs in this bill upon the expiration of the 5-year authorization period.
Now, some people might think that is the normal thing to happen in the Federal Government: you authorize a program; once the authorization goes
away, the program either gets reauthorized or it goes away. But that isn't what happens, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of this program is to force Congress to justify the continued existence of these programs through regular reauthorization efforts. Mr. Chairman, it forces us to do our jobs.
If these programs and subsidies are left unchallenged, they will continue to consume taxpayer dollars forever without being approved explicitly by the Members of Congress. As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we can't afford to put all these programs on autopilot.
This commonsense amendment would require Congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period and prevent the covert continuance of sometimes wasteful, ineffective, and duplicative programs. Ultimately, this amendment will prompt Congress--and the public--to reexamine thoughtfully these programs when the farm bill's authorization expires.
Finally, this amendment will send a strong message to stakeholders, lobbyists, and special interests that many of these Federal programs have an expiration date.
Let me hasten to add, this commonsense amendment would not eliminate or undermine the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and would not apply to the FARRM Bill's mandatory spending provisions.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, let me add my thanks to the chairman also for his good work. I know that he has worked very, very hard on getting a bill here to us to vote on, and I commend him and the staff for doing that. I was negligent in not saying that in the beginning of my remarks. So I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks and for reminding me that I should have done that.
I want to say that this amendment does not limit in any way the ability of Congress to reauthorize an expired program. Congress is Congress and can pass any laws it wants, in accordance with the Constitution, of course. But this amendment would require Congress to explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period.
What we are trying to prevent is the covert continuance of programs that have not been authorized. We should hold ourselves to a high standard here, Mr. Chairman. We shouldn't be funding programs that aren't authorized. It's just saying we should abide by the laws we pass, and that's what this does. We need to ensure that Congress and the public will thoughtfully reexamine these programs and revive them where they need to be.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source