Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is exactly right. That is the goal of our language in this bill, and it will be the additional efforts that we will undergo in the comprehensive farm bill that will follow soon.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 3336.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I would note to my colleague, the ranking member, I have one additional speaker, and then myself for whatever close I may have.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think, as we've heard here today, this piece of legislation is an effort, in a very bipartisan way, to address some of the issues in Dodd-Frank that need to be fixed. If you care about production agriculture, if you care about Main Street business, if you care about the people who work in the factories that produce the products and do the things that make this great economy move forward, then you'll support H.R. 3336. It won't affect the five biggest financial institutions that do 96 percent of this kind of business, but it will help the people who really toil and struggle every day to make a living. It will help the small communities where those good folks live. It's a positive effort to address issues that have come to light in the course of the Ag Committee's exhaustive hearings. I simply thank my colleague, Congresswoman Hartzler, for working diligently on this bill. I thank the ranking member and my colleagues. Let's vote for H.R. 3336. Let's try and help the folks back home. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who is the primary sponsor of our important piece of legislation today.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this bill. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee's ranking member, Mr. Peterson, and his staff for their diligent work on this bill on behalf of end-users and small business lenders. We have a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship at the Agriculture Committee, and their work was invaluable. I'd like to thank Representative Hartzler for her leadership on H.R. 3336 on behalf of the small business institutions and the businesses they serve. I would like to acknowledge and thank Representative Hultgren and Representative Boren, whose legislation, H.R. 3527, will not be considered today. As a result of their leadership and Mr. Peterson's support, many of the critical issues for end-users addressed in H.R. 3527 were resolved by the CFTC in its final ``definitions rule.'' I think we can reasonably feel assured that agricultural cooperatives and other end-users out in the countryside won't be unnecessarily deemed ``swap dealers'' and regulated like the largest financial institutions. As I said from the outset, if the CFTC on its own resolves concerns we have raised for months in our committee room, we would not proceed with legislation. And that's what we've done with H.R. 3527. However, concerns with the implementation of title VII remain, and so we are here today to proceed with H.R. 3336. This bill addresses issues that are important to community and farm credit banks--organizations which are instrumental to the economic vitality of our towns and rural communities. In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress was careful to ensure that new regulations wouldn't impose unnecessary costs on small institutions that might deter them from extending credit to businesses across America. Small banks pose very little risk to our financial system. Within the banking system, 96 percent of the notional value of derivatives is held by the five largest banks. The very small remaining percentage of the derivatives exposure in our financial system is spread across hundreds of small institutions. That's why Congress never intended for these community lenders to be regulated the same as the largest global financial institutions. This bill aims to restore Congressional intent by exempting small banks, credit unions, nonprofit cooperative lenders, and farm credit institutions from costly clearing requirements under Dodd-Frank. It also ensures that banks can continue to provide risk management tools to their borrowers. In addition, thanks to the leadership of Representatives Schilling, Owens, and McIntyre, provisions of H.R. 3336 will ensure captive finance affiliates of manufacturing companies like John Deere and Caterpillar are eligible for the same exemptions as their parent companies and other end-users. These affiliates are an important source of credit to consumers and businesses and promote our manufacturing sector. Lastly, through the hard work of Representatives Costa, Cardoza, and Baca, H.R. 3336 clarifies that utilities will not be miscast as swap dealers because they enter into contracts that are required by State law. The legislation clarifies that complying with State laws alone won't also draw new and costly Federal regulations. There are many Members on both sides of the aisle at the Ag Committee who have spent time getting this bill to where it is today. We have been careful not to create loopholes or to stray from congressional intent. The bill does not open the door for large financial players to evade regulations or engage in speculative or highly risky activities. Madam Speaker, in this economy, it all comes back to jobs. To create new jobs, businesses need access to credit to make new investments. This bill ensures that businesses maintain access to credit from community lenders. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3336 and ensure that America's small businesses can continue to access the credit they need to build our economy. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3336) to ensure the exclusion of small lenders from certain regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation is necessary to ensure that farmers and ranchers will not be subjected to excessive regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA currently has the ability to tighten regulatory standards for dust under the Clean Air Act. Should the EPA do so, farmers, ranchers, and rural economies could be devastated. On dry days, production could come to a standstill as producers focus on controlling dust rather than producing food. After months of receiving questions and concerns from farmers, ranchers, and their Representatives in Congress, the Administrator of the EPA finally stated that her agency does not intend to change the current standards. However, as long as EPA Administrator Jackson retains unchecked power to implement stricter standards, farmers and ranchers could be subject to oppressive regulations at any time. A legislative fix is the only way to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to invest in the future without worrying about the influence of overzealous activists on EPA's regulations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free trade agreement with Panama. Trade agreements open market access to our farmers and ranchers, which brings in valuable income and creates jobs. In my home State of Oklahoma, agricultural exports support more than 10,000 jobs. Across the country, agriculture exports support more than 1 million jobs total. Those jobs aren't confined to the farm either. They stretch across a variety of industries, including processing, manufacturing, and transportation. In fact, for every dollar of farm products that we export, we add another $1.31 to our economy from those nonfarm industries. That's why it's so important to continue opening markets for American agricultural products. More than 60 percent of our agricultural exports to Panama face some sort of duty or tariff. Those tariffs average 15 percent; but they can be as high as 70 percent on meat, 90 percent on grain, and a staggering 260 percent on poultry. Meanwhile, more than 99 percent of Panama's farm exports enter the U.S. duty free. So this agreement will not only create new opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers but it levels the playing field for our exporters. As soon as this agreement is implemented, more than half of our farm exports will become duty free. So we can expect to see immediate opportunities once this agreement is in force. America's farmers, ranchers, processors, manufacturers and shippers can all benefit from those opportunities. Let's help them expand their businesses and create more jobs. Let's pass this agreement.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free trade agreement on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers. All three free trade agreements under consideration today are essential for our Nation's agricultural industry. Out of every $100 in agricultural sales, more than $25 comes from exports. So market access is critical to the success of our farmers and ranchers. Colombia is particularly important to our producers because without a free trade agreement in place, we have begun to lose market access. Tariffs on American goods have made them more expensive and Colombians are choosing to buy other countries' products instead. Lost market access means lost income, lost jobs, and we cannot afford that. Right now Colombia imposes duties on all American agricultural products. They range from 5 percent to 20 percent. Yet we still sell more than $830 million in agricultural products there. That's because America's farmers and ranchers produce high-quality crops and livestock, and those goods are in demand. Under this agreement Colombia will eliminate tariffs on 70 percent of our exports. We can be sure that when American agricultural products are no longer subject to tariffs and become more cost competitive, we'll see substantial benefits. In fact, the Farm Bureau estimates we'll see 370 million more dollars in farm exports to Colombia annually. While our farmers and ranchers will benefit from increased market access, they will not be alone. Farm exports create jobs throughout the economy in processing, packaging, transportation, just to name a few industries. A vote to pass the Colombia free trade agreement is a vote for job growth in all these sectors. It's a vote to create income and opportunity for our farmers and ranchers. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this free trade agreement and help keep America's agricultural industry competitive.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The free trade agreement with Korea is of vital importance to America's farmers and ranchers. Korea is the fifth largest market for our agricultural exports. But currently, America's farmers and ranchers face an average tariff of 54 percent when exporting to Korea. Similar goods from Korea enter our country at an average rate of only 9 percent. Passing this agreement corrects that imbalance and gives us better access to Korea's 49 million consumers. The Farm Bureau estimates that once the agreement is fully implemented, we could see $1.9 billion in increased farm exports. Every dollar in agricultural exports creates another $1.31 in economic activity off the farm in industries like processing, manufacturing, and transportation. So the agricultural provisions alone have the potential to provide a significant boost to our economy. That isn't including the other tariff cuts in this agreement, which the International Trade Commission predicts will add more than $10 billion annually to our GDP. Within agriculture, we could see dairy exports to Korea quadruple under this agreement. Fruit and vegetable sales would increase by 50 percent. And processed food sales would increase by more than a third. Those increased sales will translate directly to more jobs--both on and off the farm. That's especially good news because workers whose jobs depend on trade earn 13 to 18 percent more than the national average. That's why there is such tremendous support among the agricultural community for these free trade agreements. I strongly urge my colleagues to support our farmers and ranchers . . . to support American jobs . . . and to support this free trade agreement.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LUCAS. Let me ever so briefly say that I oppose the amendment. It, once again, is the process of cutting funding for the Market Access Program, in effect legislating farm policy through the appropriations process. It is not appropriate under regular order. It should not be occurring. We will consider this, along with other programs, in the 2012 Farm Bill program. Let me note, I agree with my colleagues. Over the last 25 years MAP has boosted agriculture exports, it has increased American jobs, it has added to rural income. I know we have a lot of discussion these days on creation of jobs, and rightly so. Exports are one of the most surefire ways to increase American jobs. In fact, for every billion dollars in exports, approximately 8,400 jobs are created here at home. In 2010, agricultural exports alone supported nearly 1 million American jobs. Please oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is clearly an attempt to legislate policy through an appropriation bill, contrary to the intent of regular order, and this is not the way that we should do business. Arbitrarily changing eligibility requirements for farm programs outside of the farm bill is irresponsible. It seriously undermines farmers' ability to make long-term plans and investments, and it adds a dangerous element of uncertainty to the market. The result would be a reluctance to make investments in equipment and practices that increase productivity. The process of developing the 2012 farm bill would begin in the Agriculture Committee next week. Our first step will be a comprehensive audit of current farm programs to determine which are working, which are not, and how to best insure that America's farmers and ranchers remain competitive and productive into the 21st century. Our farm program audits are just the beginning of what will be a very transparent, inclusive, thorough process of developing the 2012 farm bill. During that process, we will be careful to consider how best to stabilize, how to provide stability and certainty to farmers during lean years. Without appropriate risk management tools in place, a few bad seasons could put farming operations out of business permanently. Proponents of this amendment makes it sound like the Agriculture Committee has done nothing on this issue. That couldn't be farther from the truth. As my colleague has just alluded, in 2008, the Agriculture Committee, under the leadership of my colleague, then-chairman Peterson, meticulously debated the appropriate levels for farm program eligibility. The results were some of the most aggressive reforms in AGI in 2 decades. Not only did we tighten eligibility, but in the implementation of those rules, USDA allows IRS to verify a farmer's AGI. In 2012, we will once again review how to efficiently and effectively target farm policy. America's farmers, ranchers and taxpayers deserve an open and accountable policymaking process. This amendment not only precludes a transparent process, but it silences the voices of Americans who would like to contribute to comprehensive discussion of farm policy. I urge you to oppose this amendment to prevent policy discussions from being shortchanged. Allow us to work through regular order in the open process that will be used in the coming year. Once again, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I really kind of thought we were working on the annual agriculture appropriations bill, with the discretionary money, the programs that are handled on a year-to-year basis, but it seems we are going to debate the farm bill. I guess if that is the case, I should be managing it and let me just do it a year early. The short statement is, like my colleagues Mr. Conaway and Mr. Peterson, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would turn an industry on its head. It would do no good. My good friend from Arizona has come to the floor and implied this would solve the trade dispute between the United States and Brazil. It would do no such thing. Mr. Flake has called this the Brazilian cotton problem, but the dispute is much more complicated than just cotton and actually involves export programs. This amendment wipes out the safety net established in 2008. For what reason? This is the kind of amendment you get when you have so-called experts offering amendments in areas outside their field of expertise. This is a devastating amendment. This would throw the cotton market into disarray. We have no assurance, as the ranking member and the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee chairman have noted, no assurance from the Brazilians that if we eliminated the cotton program, as this amendment basically does, that it would make any difference to them. As my colleagues have noted, we made huge changes in the 2008 farm bill, eliminating step two, changing the GSM program in a way we thought would satisfy the Brazilians. This amendment would circumvent the legislative process in what can only be described as a haphazard way. Honestly, I really expected this amendment to be thrown out on a point of order because it clearly, clearly would end the countercyclical program for cotton, significantly changes how the repayment program works, eliminates the loan deficiency payments, and eliminates the cotton storage program. Those are major policy changes. Again, this appropriation bill is 13 percent down. We are almost back to 2006 levels. Anyone who is concerned about what is being spent on the production of agriculture in rural America, take note; we are doing our part today under Mr. Kingston's bill. And when we get to the farm bill, be it next summer in regular order, be it this fall as part of some grandiose budget deficit-debt ceiling agreement, we will make incredibly tough decisions, because we will have to be a big part of addressing the national budgetary issue. But let us do it in regular order. Let us do it in the farm bill process. Speaker Boehner has said time and time again, a more open process. Look at the appropriations process. We are going to do a farm bill under this open process. All of my good friends here will get to use all of their agricultural expertise in every conceivable way they can. But let's do it in regular order, in the proper fashion, in the proper way. Again, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, the Wildlife Services' usual biologically sound and socially acceptable methods to resolve these issues when agriculture and industrial production are harmed by wildlife, or public safety is at risk from wildlife. If you own a pet, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They reduce rabies in wildlife populations which prevents the spread of that terrible disease to domestic animals and humans. Every time you get in a car, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They work to reduce automobile collisions with deer, which affect an average of 29,000 people each year, cause $1 billion in damages. Every time you fly on a plane, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They have people working in all 50 States to prevent dangerous aircraft collisions with birds. How can we forget Captain Sullenberger's heroic landing on the Hudson River after Flight 1549 hit a bird at takeoff? And while we applaud the captain's achievement, there is no question that reducing these dangerous collisions must be a priority in the future. And the largest portion of the Wildlife Services' budget, 43 percent, is spent on protecting human health and safety. Often Wildlife Services is the first line of defense against health risks involving everything from West Nile virus to avian flu, to Lyme disease. They prevent disease exposure to humans, livestock and wildlife. And what's more, Wildlife Services is one of the few Federal agencies that requires private sector matching funds on a 1-1 basis. It's unfortunate that there are not more Federal programs as fiscally responsible as the Wildlife Services. Yet, every year, animal rights groups opposed to the predator control conducted by the joint USDA Wildlife Services programs attempt to eliminate the funding from this vital program. And every year Congress rejects these attempts. That's because the wildlife cause $126 million in livestock losses for producers, field crop losses totaling $619 million, specialty crop losses at $146 million. All told, wildlife causes $12.8 billion in damage every year to natural resources, public infrastructure, private property and agriculture. Without the predatory management done by Wildlife Services, losses would explode, driving family farms and ranchers out of business. Cutting funding for the Wildlife Services would be both costly and dangerous. Doing so also ignores the proven science behind Wildlife Services work, as well as their commitment to minimizing wildlife mortality. This amendment's not scientifically sound, and it's certainly not economically minded. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, continue the funding for the Wildlife Services' efforts to protect you, your property, your pets.

Mr. LUCAS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I too rise in opposition to this amendment. Let's face it. The Wildlife Services plays a critical role in protecting humans from dangers caused by wildlife. The Wildlife Services uses biologically sound and socially----

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against section 741 which begins on page 78, line 8, and ends on page 78, line 15, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against section 744 which begins on page 79, line 3, and ends on page 79, line 10, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.