Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2642, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am so overjoyed to rise today to be at this point in the farm bill process, where we are on the verge of sitting down with our friends in the other body and beginning to put the final bill together. This has been a long and challenging process for both myself, the ranking member Mr. Peterson, and all members of the House Agriculture Committee.

We have touched on many subject matters. We have had the most amazing open markups in committee, with amendments almost beyond galore. Twice we have been across the floor of this great body in, essentially, an open process, considering literally 100-plus amendments almost every time it seems.

From that process we are now, with a product, ready to go to conference with the other body. This motion, and the next two sense of Congress resolutions, address several things that were decided on the floor of this House.

While I appreciate mightily the opportunity to reassess the judgments of the body, I would just simply say this, looking at the various points: my good friend the ranking member is exactly right. This motion would restore 1938 and 1949 law as the permanent base farm bill.

Franklin Roosevelt was President, of course, when the 1938 law was signed into place. President Truman signed the 1949 law into place. Those laws were designed at a time when I suspect the average tractor was 55 horsepower. I suppose the average dairy might have been 40 cows.

They were put in place on the assumptions of parity and production controls and allotments and production history, a lot of things that have long since faded away in subsequent farm bills.

I know my friend and a number of groups, in good faith, advocate that we keep that 1938 and 1949 law in place. But I would suggest to my colleagues, the open process we have been through, the open process we are about to have in conference, if we can come up with good language that a majority of both bodies can agree on, that a fellow down at the White House will sign if it is good policy, maybe the conference should be given the option, as is now the case within the farm bill language, of using the 2013 farm bill as base.

The Senate retains the old permanent law from 1938 and 1949. At present, we don't do that in the House draft, so we have got the ability to discuss it. We have got the ability to work on it. I, personally, think that's a good thing.

Now, the other portion of this motion, and this reflects, again, some very serious, sincere differences of opinion, both in committee and on the floor, about how to address the fundamental nature of the nutrition title. This House decided that the reauthorization should be for 3 years instead of what would be the more traditional concurrent authorization with the rest of the farm bill. I think every Member has to vote their own conscience on that issue.

But, understand: the motion, as structured, would take away the potential option for moving permanent law from the Roosevelt-Truman administration to the present day, and it would also restore that 5-year authorization on nutrition programs, things my colleagues have to take into consideration and factor.

Mr. Speaker, I note to my colleague I am my only speaker on this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I would note to my colleagues that many of the points of great merit offered over the course of the discussion of this motion were points debated and discussed on the floor and in committee. I respect the sincerity of all of my colleagues, but we need to remember this motion has two key central points:

Number one, the 1938 and 1949 law remain permanent. We take away the conference's ability to negotiate that point with the United States Senate. Take it away, take it off the table is the goal of this motion to instruct.

The second point, of course, deals with the authorization on SNAP. Should it be 3 years? Should it be 5 years? That is the question you have to decide in this motion. Do you take away the House's ability to have the option of making whatever we can all agree on permanent law? Do you insist that we continue to have the food program, SNAP, run concurrently with the rest of the farm bill? It's a very simple set of issues to consider.

From my own perspective, I would ask the House to allow the conference committee as much flexibility as possible in negotiating with the other body--as much flexibility as possible--and that would require rejecting the motion to instruct.

With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I look forward to the joys of hopefully not quite as challenging a conference as this first 2 years of this process has been but, nonetheless, an acknowledgment that we need to get our work done in a timely fashion and bring a product back that a majority of this body can accept and support.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source