Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlelady's very sincere interest, and of course our colleague Congressman Hastings' work and concern about pollinator health. He has been a champion on these issues for quite some time. While we are all aware of the need for Federal cooperation in addressing the issues related to pollinators, I believe this amendment is costly and duplicative. I am likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority granted to the Secretary to implement new policies without the necessary statutory structure to direct the Secretary's agenda. I am aware that several constituent groups have raised concerns since this language first surfaced last month as a proposed Boxer amendment to the Senate farm bill, but as yet, few, if any, have had a chance to clearly evaluate it, and none have had a chance to be heard in a hearing process to evaluate their concerns. I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues otherwise. I would like to work with the both the lady and the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a mutually desirable outcome to address this. When I say ``I'm concerned about the authority given to the Secretary,'' in the language it says: The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry out such activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect and ensure long-term viability of populations. ``Determine.'' I just have concerns about the nature of this language. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the endeavor of the delegation from Colorado. I understand they're dealing with very challenging circumstances out there. I'm not necessarily sure this is the final form this language should be in, but I would suggest to my colleagues that we support them and that we pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. LUCAS. The chair would just note to the gentleman that I think he's got a very interesting concept here. Clearly, we need to talk more about this as we go along. But if my ranking member would nod his head over there, I certainly would be willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining and eliminating duplicative programs. The result, I believe, is a fair, balanced, and flexible conservation title that addresses the natural resource concerns of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. However, the gentleman's amendment seeks to undo this balance by stripping the EQIP program of the authorities that make it unique. The EQIP program is arguably the most successful conservation program administered by the NRCS. Through cost share assistance, these programs help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, State, and local environmental regulations. Known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers depend on EQIP for assistance to build waste storage facilities, eliminate nutrient runoff, and purchase equipment like methane digesters. The gentleman's amendment would fundamentally change EQIP with arbitrary limits that would reduce livestock producers' participation and restrict the types of conservation programs that could be implemented. With EPA and environmental groups targeting livestock operations, we should not diminish the program's current authorities. The amendment would make EQIP no different than any other working lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32 million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set- aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted initiatives. I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern. I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.

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

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman. I simply want to note, as being an Oklahoman, I have an appreciation for drought issues, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important topic to our attention. I think we should all vote for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time. I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it. There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how to do that. Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different amendment. I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I, too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a systematic way about it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).