K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Ag Committee has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to craft these reforms to the food stamp program that this amendment would strip out totally. The argument that somehow we can food stamp our way into a great economy is a bit false in the sense that it doesn't reflect that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we are putting into the program. The families that the previous speaker referenced will still remain on food stamps. If you qualify on the income and asset side, you'll stay on the program. If you make too much money to qualify directly for food stamps, those are the folks who will be getting out as part of the $20 billion that we'll save in this program. It's a 2 percent reduction. I'm hard pressed to understand how we could have a near 5 percent reduction in the beneficiaries by cutting only 2 percent of the spending. We'll trim it from $80 billion a year to $78 billion a year. Much of the conversation you'll hear and justification for not going along with these reforms sounds like we're gutting and destroying the entire program. We are not. These are modest reforms that we believe are appropriate at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the McGovern amendment and support what the bipartisan Committee on Agriculture did.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I respectfully disagree with my good colleagues, both of whom are sincere in their efforts. I believe this amendment is wrong-headed. If it had been enacted last year, it would have placed $928 million in cash assistance into largely unstable regions of the world and with no clear guidelines on how the money should be spent or tracked. We saw a rampant waste of cash in Iraq when we tried to use cash to further our means there. It's a whole lot harder to steal a sack of rice with ``USA'' written on the side of it than it is to steal a sack of currency. This program is meant to help folks in need of food. There is no better producer and no cheaper producer than the American farmer. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we all have deep concerns about hunger in America and hunger around the world, and every effort to abate that is worthy; however, I must oppose this amendment. One of our efforts at the committee, over the last several years, is to look for duplicative processes, duplicative programs to eliminate. Reducing this duplication in these agencies has been a major priority for the committee over the last 2\1/2\ years, and we've held audits for implementing agencies, field hearings across the countryside and hearings here in Washington to receive stakeholder input on the effectiveness and, more importantly, the inefficiencies of programs within our jurisdiction. While I support providing access to healthy foods for low-income communities, I believe that our base bill makes significant strides in addressing these concerns, both the inefficiencies as well as the effectiveness of the programs. What is even more concerning than authorizing this duplicative program is the offset that is used to pay for more government redundancy. Exports are vital to the U.S. agricultural economy. Nearly one-third of our agricultural sales come from exports. In the last 25 years, the Market Access Program has proven to be highly successful in helping to boost U.S. agricultural exports, expanding jobs and increasing rural income. The amount of money sought is about $20 million a year over the 5- year program for a total of $100 million. We must look at programs that are effective on a big enough scale to have a really big impact; and this is a program that, while perhaps impactful on a few very small communities and small issues, it will not affect hunger widely across this country. I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this attack on a very important piece of the safety net that production agriculture relies upon. There are two possible outcomes for this amendment, and both are bad. The first is that we're going to put the government back in the business of delivering crop insurance. We tried that. It didn't work. Government employees don't act nearly as responsibly as the private sector does. That comes with a cost, but the farmers like it. They get response from these folks that is appropriate. Secondly, we would go back to the possibility of days when we spent billions of dollars on unbudgeted, ad hoc disaster relief. And that's the least efficient way that we ought to go about this. And that's what this amendment does. It is bad for taxpayers. In spite of my colleagues' comments, this amendment won't save money. It will end up costing us untold billions in this ad hoc disaster spending that's the norm in that regard. I know that the Environmental Working Group and other radical environment groups want to run our farmers and ranchers out of business. I get that. This amendment would certainly help them accomplish their goal. So if your aim today is to stick the American taxpayer with billions of dollars to pay for ad hoc disaster bills, this is your kind of amendment. If you want to give the extreme environmentalist group, the crowd that gave us Meatless Mondays, a win in their effort to ruin American farming and ranching families, this will get right at it. So I have farmers and ranchers struggling with 3 years of successive and severe drought. This is a slap in the face to those farmers and ranchers in west Texas and across this country. This amendment is not good, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this amendment in the en bloc section. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment that will require the Secretary of State to submit a report on water sharing with Mexico as defined by the 1944 Water Treaty. This amendment has bipartisan support, and I would like to thank my good colleague Mr. Vela from Texas for supporting this important legislation. This amendment addresses Mexico's failure to uphold its water obligations to the United States by seeking to increase accountability in water management by requiring the State Department to provide regular reports to Congress outlining the management of the Rio Grande system. The Rio Grande plays an important role in meeting the water needs of businesses and families all across west and south Texas. This is a result of the 1944 water treaty between the United States and Mexico which outlines the obligations of both parties in the lower Rio Grande. Both the U.S. and Mexico are obligated to jointly manage and derive benefit from the water resources located across the binational border. Mexico is required to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water on average each year over a 5-year term. Currently, Mexico has failed to meet this obligation as they owe nearly half a million acre-feet to the United States. It's not a secret that Texas has suffered a terrible drought and there is really no relief in sight. Mexico needs to begin fulfilling its obligations. Our farming and ranching communities depend on it. Again, I appreciate the chairman for including it in the en bloc amendment and obviously support passage of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the House just passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which will protect the unborn from some heinous conduct by certain physicians. I know I have good colleagues. There are good citizens on both sides of the abortion issue, and they are heartfelt. But a free, honest, and caring society cannot, at any term, tolerate the conduct by the physician in Philadelphia and those like him who would create the most savage, barbaric abortion methods to take the life of children that were 20 weeks or older. This bill goes a long way toward addressing that cruelty that we cannot let stand in this country. I'm proud of my colleagues who voted for it this evening, and I appreciate the passage of this bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lucas as well as Ranking Member Peterson for the great work they've done in getting us to this point. It's been bipartisan, and it's been an honor to work with both these gentlemen. This bill wasn't written overnight. This bill that we'll consider today or tomorrow or the next couple of days is the result of 4 years of debate, a 2-year audit of every single policy in the USDA, as well as 40 hearings and the second markup last month and now the floor debate. This landmark bill saves taxpayers billions over the next 10 years while making the greatest reforms in food policy since 1996. There are many reasons why this balanced, equitable, and market- oriented farm bill is deserving of support. As we consider this legislation, I hope every Member of Congress will really think about how important it is to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk. This is a piece of legislation, not an opportunity for theatrics. The difference between those who don't support this legislation and those who do is simple: the first group talks about cutting spending, talks about cutting the deficit, talks about making reforms, and talks about reducing the size of government, and the farm bill and its supporters actually do all of those things. Failure to pass this farm bill means more of the same from Washington-- $40 billion in additional government spending; 100 programs that we on the committee believe have outlived their usefulness will continue on; and we will continue the runaway, abusive spending programs within the SNAP programs without the reforms that we've put in place for this bill. Opposing this bill is a vote for the status quo in Washington. A vote against this bill is a vote for the status quo in Washington. I could go back to my district and tell my constituents that I voted against this bill because I'm a fiscal conservative, knowing full well that what I really did was leave Washington with the spending spigot fully turned on, and I'm not going to do that. I hope my fellow Members won't do it either. This bill helps to provide food safety for our national security. A nation that produces its own food is more secure. In addition to the work on the Ag Committee, I also serve on the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and I see the dangers that our country faces every day. It is not in our Nation's best interest to depend on other countries for our food supply like we do for energy and other areas. This bill is supported by hundreds of farm associations, agribusinesses, and farmers and ranchers across the country, including more than 80 in my home State of Texas. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's pass this and move on. While farmers and ranchers would rather not ask us for this farm bill, it's simple--they don't have a choice. If they could buy insurance for their crops like you and I can on our home, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they cannot. Without federal crop insurance, farmers and ranchers would have no insurance on a crop that they will spend more money each year to produce than most Americans will spend in a lifetime. If farmers and ranchers could freely market their crops around the world without foreign governments putting up barriers, high tariffs, and spending billions of dollars to subsidize their farmers and ranchers, they would gladly do it. But while we are debating cutting farm policy to record low levels, foreign subsidies and tariffs are hitting record highs and just keep rising. There is nothing free market about selling out America's farmers and ranchers to the uncompetitive trade practices of foreign countries. This farm bill represents a modest response to Mother Nature and foreign subsidies and tariffs. It represents just one-quarter of 1 percent of the total budget. If every committee in Congress and every facet of government contributed to deficit reduction as the Agriculture Committee has, we would have the deficit licked by now. Great thinkers throughout history have drawn the connection between the people who produce our food and clothing and the good of a nation. We in Congress owe it to the American taxpayer to pass legislation that promotes the safest, most abundant and cheapest food and fiber supply in the world. I urge my colleagues to pass this farm bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Agriculture Committee and the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Swaps are important tools that our farmers, ranchers, and businesses rely on to hedge the risks of competing in a global marketplace. Yet later this month, guidance the CFTC issued could fundamentally disrupt these markets here at home and around the world unless Congress acts today. Last summer, the CFTC issued its proposed crossborder guidance to the marketplace for review and comment, explaining how it would regulate swaps entered into by foreign companies. What was produced was startling in its reach--the guidance declares that almost any swap entered into by anyone with any interest related to the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the CFTC and the Dodd-Frank Act. As chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee, I held a hearing on this issue last December with Commissioners Sommers and Chilton from the CFTC and regulators from the European Union and Japan. Each witness agreed that it was imperative that we get the crossborder application of Dodd-Frank correct and that the U.S. not try to police swap markets around the world. Respect for equivalent, but not necessarily identical, regulatory standards has been a cornerstone of international banking regulations for decades. The CFTC as rewritten the principles of international cooperation with this guidance, insisting that it alone can and should manage the global swaps markets. Predictably, this was met with universal outcry from foreign governments and international regulators. But today's bill is about far more than just the pride of international regulators. If the CFTC's guidance stands and equivalence is no longer recognized, the global derivatives market can become regionalized as institutions and customers transact a majority of their business within their home jurisdictions. Such an outcome would concentrate specific risks in various economies and sectors of the world. Here at home, American end users who use swaps to manage everyday business risks may have fewer counterparties to work with. Fewer counterparties means that there will be less competition and liquidity in the market, leading to higher costs for end users and a concentration of higher risk in the United States. Not only has the CFTC failed to cooperate with international regulators, it's failed to do so at home, as well, leading the SEC to propose a separate rule governing the small slice of swaps markets that it regulates. Today, there are two different sets of rules for when market participants are subject to U.S. law, depending on what instrument is being traded. The Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act will end this mess. It first requires that the CFTC and the SEC cooperate on a single, joint rule for the extraterritorial application of Dodd-Frank regulations. Second, it requires the CFTC and the SEC to recognize the competence of certain sophisticated foreign regulators, unless they can both agree that the regulators have failed to produce equivalent requirements. For all the back and forth today, this is a simple, straightforward bill. In a nutshell, it requires the CFTC and the SEC to cooperate, both with each other and with the rest of the world--exactly what they should have been doing all along. I'd like to thank my counterpart on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Garrett, for his work on bringing this legislation to the floor today. I would, as well, like to thank Ranking Member David Scott, who continues to be a thoughtful and productive partner on issues in the Agriculture Committee. And, finally, I'd like to thank Chairman Frank Lucas who never lets us forget that our constituents depend on these markets to manage their businesses and protect themselves in an uncertain world. With that, I urge swift passage of the legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for his use.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard from a number of foreign governments around the world on their entities' regulatory schemes and--let me just say--strong disagreement with the cross-border guidance that Chairman Gensler and the CFTC proposed. We have heard from Ministers of Finance from the United Kingdom, the European Commission, France, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Russia, and Switzerland. We've heard from the European Securities and Markets Authority. In Australia, we've heard from the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Hong Kong Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. Japan has weighed in with the Japan Financial Services Agency and the Bank of Japan. The Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, and from the UK we've heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Services Authority. I would like to submit for the Record two of those letters; one to Secretary Lew from a number of folks, and the other is to Chairman Gensler from England, the European Union, Japan, as well as France. Mr. Speaker, all of these letters are posted on the Agriculture Committee's Web site for constituents and others to read and get a flavor of what our fellow regulators around the world are saying about this. None of them have any interest in an unregulated market. They all see the risks that we see. This bill simply asks the SEC and the CFTC to get along, come to a conclusion, whatever that might be, and then deal equitably with their fellow regulators around the world. These are bright, smart people, just like we are. For us to argue that we have the only perfect scheme to regulate derivatives is a bit wrongheaded. This bill goes a long way to fixing that. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill, vote in favor of it, and I yield back the balance of my time. 18 April 2013. Cross-Border OTC Derivatives Regulation Dear Secretary Lew: We, the undersigned, are writing to express our concern at the lack of progress in developing workable cross-border rules as part of reforms of the OTC derivatives market. We are already starting to see evidence of fragmentation in this vitally important financial market, as a result of lack of regulatory coordination. We are concerned that, without clear direction from global policymakers and regulators, derivatives markets will recede into localised and less efficient structures, impairing the ability of business across the globe to manage risk. This will in turn dampen liquidity, investment and growth. We share a common commitment with respect to OTC derivatives reform, and are implementing rules across very different markets with different characteristics and different risk profiles, to support this global initiative. We believe the basic principles on which cross-border rules should be based are clear and widely shared, and we summarise them in the annex to this letter. An approach in which jurisdictions require that their own domestic regulatory rules be applied to their firms' derivatives transactions taking place in broadly equivalent regulatory regimes abroad is not sustainable. Market places where firms from all our respective jurisdictions can come together and do business will not be able to function under such burdensome regulatory conditions. A coherent collective solution is therefore needed for cross-border derivatives, and regulators must work together to avoid outright conflicts in regulation and minimise overlaps as far as possible. In this regard, mutual recognition, substituted compliance, exemptions, or a combination of these would all be a valid approach, and careful consideration should be given with respect to registration requirements for firms operating across borders. Recent experience shows that these discussions can only proceed if they are based on a shared understanding of the overall outcome being sought. For this reason, we are writing to urge that jurisdictions consider carefully the attached principles to avoid cross-border conflicts and support the Pittsburgh G20 reforms. We hope that these principles might provide a useful foundation for regulatory discussions to make progress. We urge all authorities to work with us to achieve an outcome that meets the principles outlined in this letter and we, in turn, commit to continue to work to address the areas of concern which are most fundamental to others. To this end, this letter is copied to the Chairman of the FSB; the Chairman of the CFTC; the Chairman of the SEC; the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; and the Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture. Yours sincerely Guido Mantega, Minister of Finance, Government of Brazil. Pierre Moscovici, Minister of Finance, Government of France. Taro Aso, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of State for Financial Services, Government of Japan. Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Finance, Government of South Africa. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, UK Government. Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, European Commission. Wolfgang Schauble, Minister of Finance, Government of Germany. Anton Siluanov, Minister of Finance, Government of Russia. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Finance Minister, Government of Switzerland.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CONAWAY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the historic achievement of the Angelo State University men's and women's track and field teams. On May 4, 2013, the Rams and the Rambelles won the Lone Star Conference Outdoor Track and Field titles. This marks the first time in school history that both the men's and women's teams have won their conference title in the same year, the fifth consecutive year for the Rambelles and the first for the Rams since 1992. The Rams won their title in dramatic west Texas fashion, defeating their rivals West Texas A&M in the final race. Coach James Reid, his staff, and these young men and women worked tirelessly this year to have earned their place in ASU history. They bring great pride to their school, the city of San Angelo, and west Texas. I encourage them to savor their victories, and I wish them great success as they defend their titles next year. Again, I congratulate the Angelo State Rams and Rambelles for their Lone Star Conference Outdoor Track and Field titles. Go Rams!

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fort Wolters Gate Committee, the service members at Fort Wolters, and the community of Mineral Wells, Texas on the dedication of the Ft Wolters Medal of Honor Memorial. On March 23, 2013, they came together to help honor some our nation's greatest men and ensure the legacy of their service will never be forgotten. The Medal of Honor Memorial lies at the heart of the quiet Fort Wolters Historical Park near the main entrance of Fort Wolters. This memorial is composed of stone columns with the fourteen names of the Medal of Honor recipients who trained at Wolters inscribed upon them. These inscriptions tell the stories of men who found themselves in defining moments and responded exceptionally. The following names are those who passed through Wolters as part of their journey to those moments: 1st LT Charles L. Thomas; Birmingham, AL.; 1st Lt Eli L. Whitely; Georgetown, TX; 2nd Lt Audie L. Murphy; Kingston, TX; 1st Lt Jack L. Knight; Garner, TX; SSG Edward A. Carter, Jr.; Los Angeles, CA; 1st Lt Vernon Baker; Cheyenne, WY; 1st Lt James M. Sprayberry; LaGrange, GA; CWO Michael J. Novosel; Etna, PA; MAJ Patrick H. (Pat) Brady; Philip, SD; CWO Frederick E. Ferguson; Pilot Point, TX; CPT Jon E. Swanson; Boulder, CO; MAJ William E. Adams; Casper, WY; CPT Ed (Too Tall) Freeman; Neely, MS; SSG Joe R. Hooper; Louisville, KY. These fourteen men came from different eras, regions, and backgrounds, but are all connected through a common story. Their stories of duty, honor, sacrifice, and love represent an important part of the American story. The love of their country and their families brought them to Mineral Wells, but the love for their brothers in arms drove their momentous actions. When these men met their defining moments they acted with valor and courage and have been recognized with the nation's highest military award: the Medal of Honor. We are blessed to live in a country with individuals like the ones honored here. Their actions embody our nation's greatest ideals. They proceeded without hesitation to put their country's needs, and more importantly, the lives of the men around them, before their own. We remember them for their meritorious acts of courage and heroism, even though they knew it could cost them their lives. The memorial in Fort Wolters Historical Park will serve to inspire and teach future generations of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It will serve the families that loved these men as a place to remember their stories and celebrate their lives and achievements. Again, I would like to thank the volunteers and people of Mineral Wells who worked tirelessly to build this memorial and our veterans and service members whom we owe a debt that can never be repaid.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on April 26 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall number 128, on H.R. 527. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on May 26th I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 127, on the Motion to Recommit for H.R. 527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, on April 26 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall number 126, on the Dent Amendment to H.R. 527. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on April 26 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 125, on H.R. 1765. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on April 25th I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 124, on passage of H. Res. 178. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation that is before us this afternoon. I also want to congratulate my colleague from Florida. I agree wholeheartedly with his reasons why this is important. He walked through those very eloquently. I'd like to speak quickly as to what this bill does not do. It does not create a government surveillance program. It does not give the government the authority to monitor private networks or communications like email or other activities. And it is strictly voluntary. It does not create a mandate on the private sector that they participate. In fact, these activities, monitoring and surveillance, are specifically excluded from being an activity that would be authorized under this bill. There are four purposes for which this activity can be conducted, and whatever gets done has to fit within one of these four. One is cybersecurity. Two is investigating and prosecuting cybersecurity crimes. Three would be preventing death and physical injury, and four would be protecting minors from physical and psychological harm. So whatever gets done under this bill has to fit within those narrow categories specifically to make that happen. As both speakers have said already, great work has been done in trying to protect the privacy and the civil liberties that all of us have. Those who have a grave concern that we've not fixed those, I would ask them to simply go review the contract they have with their Internet service provider. They have ceded immense personal liberties and privacies under that contract to simply sign up with that Internet service provider. So as they look at what we're trying to do with this bill, I would argue that they may have already gone past that with respect to those guys. This bill does nothing like that whatsoever. No personal information can be shared. There's a mandate that the government put in place filters so that, as that data's coming in at the speed of light, no one's reading this information. This is machine-to-machine. That personal information is scrubbed from that as it comes in. There are immense reporting requirements for this system to be put in place, so that if there are occasional breaches, and there may be, that those breaches are reported on a timely basis to the committee, not at the end of some arbitrary period but as quickly as the system can report it to the oversight committees that have jurisdiction. There is no ambiguity in this bill. It says what can be done and what cannot be done, and it outlines the consequences for breaking the law. Let me also agree with my colleague from Florida. It has a sunset provision. Five years from now, future Congresses will have to either deal with this or it goes away. And so unlike many of our bills that just simply go on unless we actually do something, this has the protection of allowing those who disagree with it to know that there will be another bite at this apple 5 years from now if, in fact, there are things we've learned about that intervening 5-year period. But this is critical for America to have this. If this were a physical attack on this country, there would be no question that the Federal Government, through its military, would stand in the breach and protect this country. There are no less dangerous attacks conducted against infrastructure, banks, airlines, other things every single day that we weren't able to help protect the private sector from, and this bill goes a long way toward doing that. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.