Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding just to note that the ranking member and I have discussed your amendment, and we are supportive.

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Benishek, I appreciate you yielding to me. The gentleman's amendment, by requiring FDA to conduct scientific and economic analysis prior to enforcing these regulations, is a step in the right direction. Simply put, it is a step in the right direction. I commend him and support his amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. In closing, I just offer the observation that this en bloc amendment will move us substantially towards completion. I believe we'll continue to work longer this evening. But most assuredly I think now--and the ranking member would probably agree--that it's possible to meet our departure deadline tomorrow, thank goodness. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. I would say to the ranking member that of course I will work with and cooperate with the ranking member in the minority. We have accomplished so much together in that spirit, and I would be happy to continue to on those particular issues of concern.

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 271, I offer the following amendments en bloc which I have placed at the desk.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself whatever time I may have yet. I would just simply say to my colleagues, the system works. As my colleague also noted, it is critically important that farmers be able to secure their financing. And while ultimately like most provisions in the FARRM Bill that raise the food and fiber, the consumers at the end of the chain benefit from the highest quality, most affordable price of food and fiber in the history of the world. Please protect this important resource to production agriculture. Please continue it to enable farmers to farm. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to myself, Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes. The ranking member makes very valid points. When you look at the way Federal crop insurance works, it shifts the risk from the Treasury to the private companies to the reinsurers to the farmers and ranchers. If you look at how these premiums and payments have gone over the last decade--not just the really tough weather last year--you'll find that, in reality, 70 percent of the policies over the last 10 years have not returned one single penny--70 percent. And if you look at how the program has worked in the 7 years prior to the onset of the drought of 2011, basically the Federal Government actually made money on Federal crop insurance. Now, I can't help the anomaly that the superdrought was in the Midwest. But I can tell you that's a pretty good track record. The ranking member is entirely right: it works. Let's not mess up something that works. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction, Mr. Conaway of Texas.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is a difference, I think, in the way that the act was created between animals and plants. I think this is an issue certainly that we need to address and look at, but in the context that it is put here, I don't think that this is an appropriate amendment. I would simply ask my colleagues in a very respectful fashion to decline this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the program specifically designed for plant products. Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of critical programs. Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must respectfully request that we oppose the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction from Iowa (Mr. King).