Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it. I appreciate the intent of the gentlelady's amendment, which is obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible has been my focus from the very beginning. That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent. Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment, farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100 percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need it the most. I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points: Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC, they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves. Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market. And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be implemented. Every crop is on its own marketing year and every State has a slightly different growing season. Administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. It will tie USDA in knots. I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's just not use it for this experiment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentlelady and simply want to note for the record that I support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. We should all vote for it.

Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I my consume. If Mr. Gibbs is willing, I'd like to request that he withdraw his amendment with my commitment that we would continue to work on these issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented farm bill. I yield to the gentleman for any response he might have.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition.

Mr. LUCAS. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that reform had to be achieved across the board. We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition title. We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens. How did we do that? Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps. We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you qualify. Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are, but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps. Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of automatic food stamps. We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8 billion. We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help. We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help those who need the help. Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated? I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork, they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify. But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5 billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall FARRM Bill. It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most difficult of circumstances. I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend in other places. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me state the persuasive powers of the gentlelady are to be much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared. While perhaps not every syllable of her amendments in their present form do I necessarily agree with, I am supportive. I believe she is on the right vein, and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal. That said, though, I must also express my appreciation to all my colleagues, to the professional staff of both the majority and the professional staff of the minority. When we started this process earlier, I noted to all of you that I felt like if we would work this in regular order, if we would have discussion and amendment and great debate, we could achieve consensus. Now, we have approximately five more amendments to go tomorrow. We will conclude this experience on time--hurray--and I believe in a fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means I think we'll pass the bill, but we shall see tomorrow. That said, thank you all. This is the way the process is supposed to work.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1947, pursuant to House Resolution 271, amendment No. 55, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, may be considered out of sequence.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed 5 legislative days to add additional material.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. LUCAS. This is clearly a very important issue and the gentleman has made great headway on it. Thank you for those efforts. Of course I'm very supportive of what you're endeavoring to do.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the subcommittee chairman and, once again, outstanding working being done. I would encourage all of our fellow Members of this great body to vote for your wonderful amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly the gentleman is working diligently to do good things; and, therefore, I would be supportive of his amendment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.