Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I stand before you again to discuss a farm bill. It has not been that many days ago since we did this very thing. On that particular day, it was my hope that the bill put forth on the floor--after 100 amendments, approximately, in committee, after 100 amendments essentially being filed and mostly considered on the floor of the House--that we would have a product we could all support. But on that day, a sufficient number of my friends from both sides of the aisle, from different political perspectives, united together to say no.

Now, I chair the committee of primary jurisdiction on this. I'm a member of the majority. My good friend was my coauthor on the bill. But I take responsibility. That was my chin that got bopped, and maybe it needed it. But I take that responsibility.

But I am a practical guy. I sat down and I had conversations with as many of you as possible and reached out to everyone I could possibly reach out to, and I came to the realization that I had to think outside the box. Because, after all, what's the most important responsibility here? To get our work done in a dignified, orderly fashion, to consider the opinions of everyone--yes, protect the right of the political minority, whoever that may be, in whichever session of Congress that may be--but still, for the majority of the body to decide the actions of this House. And yes, on that day, the majority of you decided no action was the response.

So now I come back asking you again to consider a bill. Eleven of the 12 titles we debated and discussed and rumbled and argued and cheered about 2 weeks ago, 11 of those titles. Yes, some of you saw it in committee; yes, the rest of you saw it on the floor.

Now, there is one change, and that is going from 1938, 1949 permanent law over to making whatever the ultimate product of this farm bill process this year is the permanent law.

Let me say to you, think about what the '38 and '49 law is all about. Franklin Roosevelt was President in 1938; Harry Truman was President in 1949. That's been a long time ago. The principles of the bill entail supply and management, allotments, quotas, production history limitations, prices based on parity from 1910 to 1913. Wasn't Taft President back then? It is not workable language.

I know many of you said, that's the hammer with which we force things to happen. Well, the hammer hasn't worked very well in the last 2 years, has it? It is time to move past that old paradigm, to craft good, agricultural policy for rural America for the consumers out there and make it the permanent law. And, yes, we can pass the new farm bill in 5 years if we want or sooner, but everything will be up to debate, discussion, and voting.

Now, what about title IX that was in the previous bill that's not in the bill today dealing with nutrition? It became quite clear to me not many days ago that that was the most complicated part of the process. It was an area where while the committee had by majority vote agreed to make very fundamental changes saving to the tune of $20.5 billion in mandatory spending, it became quite clear to me that a number of my friends in all sincerity felt it was far too draconian, far too extreme; and I accept that.

By the same token, I had a substantial number of my colleagues who said, oh, my goodness, why couldn't you do more, we demand more; and I couldn't reconcile those two perspectives in this comprehensive bill in this traditional way.

So what's the alternative? I ask you today to vote for a farm bill farm bill. What an amazing concept. All of you who represent farmers and ranches, the men and women who raise the food and fiber, who get things done in this country, when you go talk to them, they say, why didn't we do that all along.

But the nutrition title, let me give you my personal pledge. The committee will work in as bipartisan a fashion as I hope we have traditionally always have to craft language.

My only problem is, having dealt with this issue already, I can't guarantee you what the product will look like coming out of committee or coming across the floor. I can't guarantee that.

But I can assure you that in the committee it will be a fair and open process. I can assure you that you will be able to state your will on this floor.

Hopefully, if 218 of us can agree on a nutrition title, then the two bills can hopefully be wedded, matched--a conference is the more appropriate phrase to say--with the work of our friends over in the Senate and we will ultimately have a product. I just can't give you the kind of guarantees you need because I have to have 218 of you agree on anything. But I can give you my commitment to work in that direction.

I know there are some very grave concerns. What if we don't succeed in passing a nutrition title? What if the Senate says that is your fault, United States House?

I would remind you that SNAP's programs are an appropriated entitlement. That means the issues can be addressed in the appropriations process. That has occurred before. No one ever went without a benefit that they qualified for.

But I would also say to all my friends who care so intensely from every perspective about this bill, that doesn't guarantee you that you will get what you want, any of you. It just means that if we are not able to address nutrition through the regular authorizing process, our friends on the Appropriations Committee, the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, in particular, now become the front-line discussion. But once again, the House will work its will through the committee process and across the floor.

If you see a common thread here, it is that I have amazing amounts of faith in you. In spite of the challenges that outside groups from all political perspectives present, in spite of the diversity of opinion within elected leadership on both sides of the aisle--I know you are fond of me because of the way you've been treating me, all of you, lately--but in spite of those actions, my friends, and because you have a responsibility to your constituents as Members and to our fellow citizens in the country as a whole, I respect what you think.

I would simply conclude by saying, in the situation we are in right now, this I believe very sincerely is the most appropriate way to pass a bill that entails 20 percent of traditional farm bill spending. I commit to you that we will work on that second piece as hard and as diligently as we can. But please, after all the good faith and discussions in the spirit of comity, civility, and the nature of making this place work, I ask you to pass the farm bill farm bill so I can begin to work on the nutrition part of the farm bill next.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source