Rick Crawford

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the intent of section 716 to reduce risk in the financial system, it does exactly the opposite. It creates more risk, and it places an undue burden on financial institutions for conducting legitimate hedging activities. This legislation would take an important step to ensure that Dodd-Frank is living up to its goal to reduce systemic risk, a goal on which both parties agree. Even former Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank--the namesake of the bill in question--endorsed this bill last Congress, saying that it will not in any way, shape, or form reduce sensible regulation in derivatives. I rarely agreed with Congressman Frank, but I certainly share the goal of regulating the financial system in a sensible way, and I think that is the key. H.R. 992 would prevent financial institutions from forcing their derivatives business outside the banking structure to an entity that is far less regulated than the bank. So, while some may believe that section 716 provides more regulation, they are mistaken. Again, it is the other way around. All we are asking is to allow financial institutions to mitigate their risks so we can have a stronger banking system. A stronger financial system makes America more competitive economically; it creates jobs; and it provides stability for the consumer. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, in August, the explosive ordnance disposal community lost one of its best and brightest. Staff Sergeant Joshua Bowden of Villa Rica, Georgia, was killed in action on August 31, 2013, at the age of 28, while serving his country in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Bowden joined the United States Army in 2005 and was on his second deployment to Afghanistan. His awards included the Joint Service Commendation Medal with Valor, Purple Heart, Joint Defense Meritorious Service Medal, NATO Medal, Combat Action Badge, Senior Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge, Parachutist Badge, and the Air Assault Badge. As cochairman of the House EOD Caucus, along with Congresswoman Susan Davis, I was honored to meet Staff Sergeant Bowden in 2011 during our caucus' first annual EOD Day on the Hill. The purpose of this event was to educate Members and staff about the critical mission EOD forces play in defending American interests, both at home and abroad. Staff Sergeant Bowden was a patriot who was willing to put himself in the line of fire to defend our country's way of life, and I am proud to have met him. In September, Staff Sergeant Bowden was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. It is important that we regularly take time to reflect on the sacrifices made by our Nation's servicemen and -women and the veterans who preceded them. I am honored to have met Staff Sergeant Joshua Bowden, and my thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to ask this simple question to my colleagues here in the House and to our counterparts in the Senate, and that is simply this: Does it make sense for us to speed ahead with $1.3 trillion in new entitlement spending when our country is in the middle of a debt crisis and Medicare and Social Security are on the brink of bankruptcy? If the answer is ``yes,'' then you can go home and explain that to your constituents. If the answer is ``no,'' maybe we could explain why we are doing it.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring two very contrasting perspectives to the floor with regard to health care. One of them starts with an individual that we are all familiar with, and when he talks, people listen. On March 1, 2010, Warren Buffett said: I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs in regard to health care. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. The American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill. Now, he has changed his position two or three times and it is hard to get a beat on exactly how he feels about ObamaCare, but when he talks, people listen. The problem is the people we need to hear from the most aren't being heard. I got a letter from Christy in Jonesboro, in my district, and I'm going to share that letter with you today. It says: As I was listening to the radio this morning, people were calling in about how ObamaCare is already affecting them. I just want you to know a little about our family. My husband and I are 48 years old, have been married 29 years, and have three daughters, ages 16, 18, and 23--all still living at home, although the 23-year-old does work a full-time job. My husband has been an auto-body mechanic for most of his life. This has taken a serious toll on his body as a result of strenuous physical labor paired with breathing chemicals. He has worked at numerous body shops--always looking for a better environment/pay/benefits. I will say, as a body man's wife, the people making good livings in this area are the body shop owners and the health insurance companies. Every shop he ever worked at offered him health insurance, but the premiums were always around $200 a week just for him. There was no way we could afford $800 a month for something that may or may not happen. Our family of five has rarely been sick. I have tried to practice preventative health care by what I feed my family because I'm positive a large percentage of health costs are due to diet. My husband makes $500 a week, on average; my daughter makes a little over $300 a week. Our rent is $800 a month. Utilities run $200. We can barely afford the $47 liability insurance on my husband's vehicle. My daughter pays the $95 liability insurance on her vehicle. We have barely been able to buy groceries, and I know how to shop frugally. We have no credit cards or expensive habits. We use the library a great deal. My question is: What will we do when we are fined because we don't have health insurance? There is absolutely no way we can afford health insurance for a family of five. It is hard to go day by day watching what is happening with the government of this once great Nation. I am so discouraged and disappointed, and I try not to fear the future when it comes to the American Government, which will dictate my future regardless. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Christy in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I want Christy to know, and I want everybody in America to know, that I hear you. Those guys that are driving the nails, those guys that are turning the wrenches, the nurses that are providing health care, the firemen who are doing their jobs working the 40-hour week, barely making ends meet, and we're piling more and more debt on this country-- $1.3 trillion in additional costs, when Social Security and Medicare are nearing bankruptcy. It's unconscionable. I want folks to know, certainly in my district and folks across the country, that there are people here that hear you. And we're going to work for you and try to fix this problem because we can't sustain this any longer.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This legislation takes a significant step in reforming the food stamp program by preserving benefits for Americans truly in need of help, while holding accountable those who are capable of helping themselves. Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen the food stamp program grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye to a system fraught with abuse. This legislation will no longer allow States to exploit various loopholes, such as artificially making people eligible simply by mailing a TANF brochure, or substantially increasing benefits by sending a nominal LIHEAP check. This legislation also no longer allows States to waive work requirements that were put in place in the 1996 welfare reform law. As another Arkansan, President Bill Clinton, said when he signed the reform bill into law, we are making ``welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life.'' The reforms in this bill will give people a second chance by ensuring food stamps will be there when people fall on hard times, but promoting self-sufficiency through employment training programs so able-bodied Americans can get back to work. Madam Speaker, this bill preserves and protects the food stamp program for the most vulnerable Americans by putting an end to institutional abuses that threaten its future viability. We can't expect to continue to provide assistance to the poor if we allow abuse to bankrupt the food stamp system. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may restore integrity to the program and continue to provide for those in need.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 2300.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for his extraordinary leadership throughout this trying process. I'm pleased to say we're one step closer to providing our ag producers the certainty that they need to accomplish their goals through a 5-year farm bill. This bill is a product of our extensive outreach to farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders across the country, and reflects the critical input we received from our rural constituents in the farm bill process that allowed producers to be heard. The Ag Committee held more than 40 farm bill hearings in Washington and across the countryside. Through this rigorous audit hearing process, we scrutinized every dollar authorized in the legislation we're offered today. What's more, the bill is the result of an open process that allowed for consideration of the ideas of anyone and everyone in the House. Ag is the number one industry in my district and the State of Arkansas; and according to the University of Arkansas, it accounts for over 250,000 direct jobs in my State. But, Mr. Speaker, it is more important for everyone to know what's at stake. This legislation may be crafted to address the U.S. ag economy, but it's not just important to our rural constituents. It's important to everyone. I have always said that if you eat, you're involved in agriculture; and I would ask my colleagues to think about that. Even if you don't have ag interests or production in your district, every single one of our constituents depends on it.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. In order for farmers in my district to compete, their operations must be economies of scale. This is largely due to the high cost of production, expensive machinery, and razor-thin margins. In order to remain economically viable, a mid-South farmer must produce a high quantity of crops and then sell that crop at an adequate price, which doesn't always work out so well. Some years in Arkansas a farmer might do very well if conditions are right and the prices don't drop too low, but in other years times can be absolutely brutal. This amendment takes the wrong approach because it adds even more uncertainty to the farmer's operation. Most farmers go to the bank for loans to pay production costs and purchases of new technology and machinery. Once you introduce a restrictive AGI, it becomes much more difficult to obtain the financing necessary to sustain an operation and stay in business. Through a careful approach, the Ag Committee has already brought significant reforms to AGI eligibility, which has already been difficult on some of my producers. We certainly don't need to go a step further. Additionally, requiring active, on-farm labor is counterproductive for two reasons: one, it discourages farms from improving and becoming more efficient; and, two, it discourages the participation of young farmers, and that could mean that they're out of a job. Farm owners and operators need to focus their attention on the management of the overall farm and key management decisions. I strongly urge defeat of this amendment, with all due respect.

Mr. CRAWFORD

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman. With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from California for his support. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I appreciate his leadership on this as well. The Crawford-Terry amendment would prevent the EPA from making public the private information of producers, including their names, telephone numbers, addresses, email and physical, GPS coordinates or other identifying location information. This measure will protect the individual privacy rights of ag producers and allow farm families to live without the threats of harassment and targeting. I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska for joining me in sponsoring this amendment. Earlier this year, as most of us already know, the EPA violated the privacy rights of producers across the country by releasing the personal information of livestock and poultry producers to various environmental activist groups. This information included names, addresses, phone numbers, GPS coordinates of over 80,000 producers over 30 States, including my home State of Arkansas. It was obtained by the EPA through State environmental quality agencies and released to the environmental groups through FOIA requests. We all know this story, and I'll be brief, and I will yield such time as my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) will consume.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman. With that, I'd urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, first I want to thank the 71 Members from both parties who joined in cosponsoring the bill that is identical to this amendment, H.R. 311, the FUELS Act. That bill also passed the House unanimously last year. The EPA-mandated spill prevention and containment countermeasure rules require that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 1,320 gallons make costly infrastructure modification to reduce the possibility of oil spills. This bill simply changes those standards, makes them considerably more workable. We have 71 cosponsors that agree with me. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman. Farm policy is intended to provide support when needed, based on production. U.S. farms have been forced to become larger to increase efficiency and remain competitive in the global marketplace. Arbitrarily limiting policies ultimately limits the ability of farms to grow and gain efficiencies, thereby penalizing U.S. farmers and putting them at a distinct disadvantage to our global competitors. Adjusted gross income is different than farm profit. There are a number of expenses that must be covered. In addition to personal expenses, farmers must service debt, given the cost of today's machinery and land can easily reach into the millions. AGI rules penalize spouses who oftentimes take off-farm jobs to help make ends meet when farmers are struggling with their farm income. An unreasonable AGI means test creates uncertainty for growers and their lenders by creating a ping-pong effect of being eligible one year and ineligible the next, making it difficult or impossible for lenders to measure, with any certainty, the future cash flow of thousands of farm and ranch families in order to make both short and long-term lending decisions. In short, an unreasonable AGI means test would make U.S. farm policy unpredictable, inequitable and punitive for thousands of American farm and ranch families.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I feel like the chairman would certainly be of the mind to work with the gentleman from Mississippi on this if he is inclined to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would statutorily authorize a pilot program at $500,000. It's my understanding that USDA is already doing this without statutory capability. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter, but there is really no reason to legislate on an issue that the administration has the capability to do. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. CRAWFORD. I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from New York. I had the opportunity to discuss this with the gentleman from Georgia prior to debate. As I understand it, if you are still of the mind and would like to consider withdrawing your amendment, I would gladly yield the balance of my time to allow you to do that.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that. On behalf of Chairman Lucas, I certainly want to extend my appreciation for the gentleman's work on this issue. If the gentleman will be willing to withdraw his amendment, I have been assured by the chairman that he is more than willing to work with you on this important issue.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his input on this. I continue to oppose the amendment. I certainly sympathize with those affected by disaster. But given the current fiscal environment, it just defies common sense to implement new, duplicative lending programs. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.