Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Sometimes you have to have reform. Sometimes you have to do things differently. But at least the Ag Committee chose to make the reforms across our jurisdiction, to make everybody have a stake in the savings. I know that's contrary to how the place works; but for one time, maybe, this session, or this day, or this year, or this decade, let's try it the old way. Let's try and look at the issue. Let's try to be fair and equitable to everyone, and let's do the legislative work to get, ultimately, to where we need to be.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. What can I say, my friends. We've covered a lot of ground, we discussed a lot of things, we pumped a lot of adrenaline, we focused on a lot of issues. I would simply say to you, today is towards a conclusion and because I'm so very fond of all of you, I simply ask you to reject this motion to recommit, pass the bill, and go home to your families. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, can I reserve a point of order?

Mr. LUCAS. I love all of you. I yield back whatever time I have to show it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 295, I call up the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. The bill before us includes 11 of the 12 titles of H.R. 1947 as amended on the House floor last month. To recap, we adopted over 60 amendments in an open process. This bill gives taxpayers nearly $20 billion in savings from mandatory Federal spending. It's the most significant reduction to farm policy in history and further improves agricultural programs so that producers have a true safety net that is triggered only when they suffer significant losses. The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by USDA, including direct payments to farmers. The bill also repeals outdated and unworkable permanent law and replaces it with the cost- effective and market-oriented provisions in title I going forward. This provides certainty to farmers and ranchers and eliminates the threat of government quotas and government price support levels based on 1938 and 1949 agricultural practices and economic conditions. This bill includes multiple regulatory relief provisions, making it the largest regulatory relief bill to be voted on this year. This process began 4 years ago when then-Chairman Peterson led us into the countryside to have eight field hearings across the Nation. We followed up with three more sets of hearings, including audits of every single policy under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee. The result is the legislation that reduces the Federal footprint and makes commonsense reforms to policy. It's no secret, my friends, that my preference would have been to pass H.R. 1947--the full farm bill--last month, but that didn't happen. We are here today with another opportunity. Today is a step towards getting a 5-year farm bill on the books this year. We can't lose sight of our responsibility to do this work. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say this: If you're serious about reducing billions of dollars in mandatory government spending, then vote for the bill. If you're serious about reducing the size and the cost of the Federal Government, vote for the bill. If you're serious about providing regulatory relief to farmers and small businesses all across rural America, then vote for the bill. If you're serious about making sure every American has a safe, affordable, reliable food supply, then vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee.

Mr. LUCAS

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Colleagues, the process of crafting this farm bill has entailed much effort by the committee. We've looked at everything within our jurisdictions. We've come up with ways of saving money and reforming things and making things more efficient across the board in every title. Let me touch, for just a moment, on the nutrition title. The committee agreed to $20.5 billion in savings: ending categorical eligibility, compelling States to the tune of $8 billion worth of savings to make adjustments in how they address LIHEAP. We have gone a tremendous distance in a bipartisan way to achieve the first real reform since 1996. Now, I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to try and increase those savings, but I say to you that the number in the bill is workable, that it is something that we can achieve, that it is something through which I believe--and we don't all necessarily see eye to eye on this--we will still allow those folks who are qualified under Federal law to receive the help they need, that they deserve. Please turn this amendment back. Please move forward with the reforms we have. Let's do things that we've not been able to do since 1996. Let's not go so far that nothing is the end result. Defeat the amendment. Support the bill. Let us move forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the points made by the good lady, but I would like to take this time to discuss for just a moment the process that we've gone through here and the nature of what we are trying to do in crafting another 5-year comprehensive farm bill. We have gone through the most amazing open process in the House Agriculture Committee 2 years in a row, and we achieved consensus. The bill this year might not be quite the same as the bill last year, and we have gone through, I think, an open process here on the floor where 103 or 104 amendments were considered by this body in open debate and open discussion and recorded votes in once again trying to achieve a consensus. I know that not everyone has in this final bill exactly what they want. I know some of my very conservative friends think that it doesn't go far enough in the name of reform. I know some of my liberal friends think it goes too far in the name of addressing the needs of people. But I would say to all of you that ultimately this body has to do its work. Ultimately, we have to move a product that we can go to conference with. Ultimately, we have to work out a consensus with the United States Senate so that we will have a final document that we can all consider together that hopefully the President will sign into law. Now, I have tried in good faith, working with my ranking member and each and every one of you in every facet of these issues, to achieve that consensus. I have tried, and I hope that you recognize and acknowledge that. We're at this critical moment. Whether you believe the bill has too much reform or not enough, or you believe it cuts too much or it doesn't cut enough, we have to move this document forward to achieve a common goal, to meet the needs of our citizens. No matter what part of the country, no matter whether they produce the food or consume the food, we have to meet those common needs in a responsible fashion. I plead to you, I implore you to put aside whatever the latest email is or the latest flyer is or whatever comment or rumor you've heard from people near you or around you. Assess the situation. Look at the bill. Vote with me to move this forward. If you care about the consumers, the producers, the citizens of this country, move this bill forward. If it fails today, I can't guarantee you that you will see in this session of Congress another attempt, but I would assure each and every one of you, whether it's the appropriations process or amendments to other bills, the struggles will go on, but it won't be done in a balanced way. If you care about your folks, if you care about this institution, if you care about utilizing open order, vote with us, vote with me on final. If you don't, when you leave here they'll just say it's a dysfunctional body, a broken institution full of dysfunctional people. That's not true. You know that's not true. Cast your vote in a responsible fashion. That's all I can ask. Thank you, my friends. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, we hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment about moving American companies to Mexico and to Canada. But that has nothing to do with the price of sugar. It has everything to do with labor costs, health care costs, and trying to get every penny out of the American farmer. Have any of you seen the price of sugar, cakes or cookies plummet over the last few years as sugar prices have decreased by 55 percent? No, you haven't. You will hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment about the high prices of sugar--so high indeed that restaurants give it away and that you can buy a five-pound bag of sugar for almost nothing. The idea that adopting this amendment is going to somehow create a free market for sugar is ludicrous. The world sugar market is one of the most distorted markets in the world. Adopting this amendment or even repealing sugar policy would do nothing but subject the U.S. to that distorted market even more than we are today, cost a lot of farmers their livelihoods, and cost this country an industry with all the jobs and economic activity that go with it. Let's be quite clear, the U.S. is already one of the largest sugar importers in the world.

Mr. LUCAS. The second argument is that we are all of a sudden going to have cheaper sugar if we adopt this amendment. What bothers me the most about this argument is that it was made when sugar prices were 55 percent higher, and it is made just the same when prices are in the tank. How cheap is cheap enough for those who are backing this amendment? They claim that consumers are being bilked by the high price of sugar, but have any of our colleagues noticed a drop in the price of candy bars as manufacturers faithfully pass along to consumers the savings from a 55 percent drop in sugar prices? Of course not. Sugar policy has operated at zero cost to the taxpayers for 10 years now. Our farmers are efficient and competitive. Consumers in this country enjoy cheaper sugar than anywhere else in the world, and sugar users enjoy a reliable source of safe sugar. Candy makers are reporting strong profits as sugar farmers and processors struggle. Neither today's climate nor the climate of 55 percent higher prices was caused by sugar policy. It was caused by conditions in a distorted market. All sugar policy does is provide a low-level safety net so farmers can repay their loan principal plus interest and farm another day. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the Agriculture Committee from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, I am aware of the concern that some of the 1890's are having difficulty meeting the matching requirement under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program. There has been considerable discussion regarding matching fund policies in our research, extension and education programs. This legislation contains several reforms reflective of those discussions and beneficial to the entirety of the land-grant community. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to allow us the opportunity to work through this issue with USDA and the 1890's Council of Presidents to craft a workable policy under McIntire-Stennis. You have my commitment that we will resolve this issue favorably and will certainly look to the language contained in the Senate legislation as the basis for these discussions.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters: House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, June 14, 2013. Hon. Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Lucas: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act,'' which is expected to be on the floor the week of June 17, 2013. This legislation includes provisions in sections 1207 and 1301 that pertain to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to the imposition and collection of tariffs on imports of cotton and sugar. Further, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains jurisdiction over all matters that concern raising revenue as contained in sections 1412 and 1435. The Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1947 and the need to move expeditiously. Therefore, the Committee is willing to forego action on the bill with the understanding that by doing so, the Committee is not in any way prejudiced with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives or the appointment of conferees on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1947, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, Dave Camp, Chairman.