Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would have far-reaching and devastating effects for America's farmers. I'm not sure the gentleman is aware of the full extent of this amendment. This amendment throws the Noninsured Crop Disaster Program into an arbitrary payment limit scheme. This program, in which farmers pay a fee to obtain crop insurance coverage, protects them from catastrophic events like flooding and tornados. If this amendment passes, farmers who have been flooded out are quite literally up a creek without a paddle. They won't get the coverage they've signed up for even though they've paid in. This amendment would also affect the permanent disaster program. Producers were required to purchase crop insurance to be eligible for that program. This amendment would be a bait and switch--they've fulfilled their end of the bargain, but we're pulling the rug out from under them now. There's a time and a place to debate the appropriate level of support for farmers. I welcome that debate as a part of the 2012 farm bill process which will in effect begin next week. The Agriculture Committee will be auditing farm programs for effectiveness and efficiency, and then we will seek input from across the country on the best way to support our farmers and ranchers while making good use of taxpayer dollars. Discussing farm programs in the context of a farm bill will represent honest, transparent policymaking. This amendment prevents that discussion from taking place by altering the terms of the contracts with farmers once they've already been signed. Protecting farmers during catastrophic weather events is the least we can do to maintain a stable food supply in our country. My colleagues in the Midwest have seen firsthand the devastation that comes with flooding. My colleagues in the Southwest know how droughts can turn healthy farms into desolation. For that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. But I also urge you to oppose it because policy changes like this should be conducted within the broader context of all farm bill policy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to return for a moment, I think, to the focus of the discussion. I want to be absolutely clear. If this amendment passes, it will--it could incite a trade war. Brazil could immediately impose $800 million in retaliatory tariffs on a variety of U.S. goods. I promise you, they won't retaliate against U.S. agricultural products. They'll go after ag chemicals and biotechnology products. And they'll go after veterinarian medicines and software and books and music and films. They'll go at everybody outside of production agriculture with their $800 billion in retaliatory tariffs. Now, we can debate how we got here; and my colleague, the ranking member, gave a very good history of what led us to this point. But this amendment right here, right now would expose the U.S. to job-killing sanctions on goods valued at $800 million. In 2010, the Obama administration finalized a framework agreement with Brazil that was a critical step in resolving this dispute about the U.S. Upland Cotton Program and export credits. And, yes, under the agreement, Brazil agreed to delay trade sanctions, trade retaliation until the 2012 farm bill was developed and put together. This amendment would circumvent the legislative process in what could only be described as a haphazard way that should be a relic of the past. This amendment is an attempt to circumvent regular order, the democratic policy process, by changing policy on an appropriation bill. Now, I can assure you, I plan and we will have a full and open process when we start the farm bill debate. We'll debate the relevant issues dealt with in this amendment. And on that note, I would serve a notice for record that next week, we plan to start the process of conducting an audit of all farm programs. This audit is just the beginning of the comprehensive and transparent process we'll use to draft the 2012 farm bill. Policy changes will be considered carefully with the input from industry stakeholders and constituents and within the larger context of improving the competitiveness and long productivity of American agriculture. Let's not incite a trade war. Let's return to regular order. And if nothing else, my friends, remember, this bill is 13 percent lower than the previous spending bill. This Ag approps bill takes us almost back to 2006. We are giving our share in this appropriations process. And everyone in this room knows that whether it's the regular farm bill next summer or if we have some grandiose understanding on the national debt ceiling and spending, the deficit, we could well have a farm bill dramatically quicker than next summer, and we'll have a farm bill that reflects a dramatic reduction in resources compared to past farm bills. Let the Ag Committee in regular order craft the policy, and then when we bring it to the floor--all of our friends, expert ag economists, we all may be together--you will have your shot, as you've had before. But please don't incite a trade war. Please don't ignore the regular order of appropriation authorization. Please be rational in what you do. We've got tough decisions ahead of us. Collin and I and the rest of the committee, we know that. We're going to do what we have to do. But let us do it in regular order, not in this fashion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, and I think it might be worthwhile to explain for just a moment what the small watershed program is and what the small watershed rehabilitation program is all about. These were efforts begun in the 1940s and 1950s by this body in an effort to address flooding conditions. Under this program, 10,000 small earthen dams were built across the country, working in interlocking series to prevent downstream flooding by capturing flood waters at the source. Now, like anything after 50 years, its life expectancy can be expected to come to a conclusion. In 2000, we created the rehabilitation program to extend the life of these structures by additional time, and it now appears, based on the modern techniques being used, engineering technologies, that these 50-year structures will wind up with a 150-year total life expectancy in many instances. This is a program where the rehabilitation resources are allocated based on need as scored by USDA. It's not an earmark program. It's not a targeted program. The money is made available, and as the structures need work, they are prioritized. It's a wonderful way to address this issue. Now, if you look at the amount of property and life and infrastructure that have been protected in the life of these programs, it's almost incalculable. In Oklahoma, in the range of $81 million a year worth of property has been saved. My colleague alluded to programs that only affect limited numbers of areas. I would note even in the great State of Georgia, there are 357 of these watershed structures. There are 69 that within the next 10 years will need the rehabilitation program. There are benefits in every State. I would just simply say, if you care and you believe that infrastructure is a part of our responsibility, if you believe that protecting every life below that dam all the way to the ocean is important, and the property, then this is a wise, small use of resources. What my friend attempts to do here is to zero out the whole program. No money for rehab this year. No money for rehab this year. That would be a travesty. That would be a tragic use of resources in the past. It's important, I think, that we continue this program.

Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LUCAS. I would say, reclaiming my time, that the gentleman is right. This is a dramatic reduction over what had been expected during the farm bill. Yet this $15 million will do tremendous work, and it is allocated on a 65-35 cost basis. Local and State government have to come up with more than a third of the money to be able to implement these rehabilitation programs. For a few pennies, we do a great deal across the country based on need, not anyone's political priorities but based on need. This is an exceptional program. I would ask my colleagues to turn back this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against section 743 which begins on page 78, line 24, and ends on page 79, line 2, 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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Cindy Smith, the outgoing Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). She has served as Administrator of APHIS since September 2007, ably carrying out the mission of APHIS: protecting American agriculture. Ms. Smith has dedicated her life to public service, and is a true success story. She started out at APHIS in 1979 as a clerk-typist. She worked her way from the bottom to the top of the agency, showing a real commitment to its important mission, no matter the job. She understands the value of leadership development. The APHIS Leadership Development Roadmap she inspired has served as a model for other Federal agencies. As APHIS Administrator, Ms. Smith led a major regulatory agency that protects U.S. plant and animal health, administers the Animal Welfare Act, and conducts wildlife damage and disease management activities, overseeing more than 8,800 employees. Ms. Smith has a unique ability to identify emerging issues and determine a course of action to attain high-quality outcomes that are technically sound while still respectful of the taxpayers' dollars. She understands how to build momentum for her ideas, while working closely with stakeholders on all sides of an issue to strengthen support and identify consensus. When HINT influenza started gaining international attention in 2009, Ms. Smith provided key leadership in shaping USDA's response. She formulated an effective response plan, recognizing what the impacts and implications of detection in the U.S. livestock population would be, and how it would affect the swine industry. She directed APHIS to align animal health and human health officials at the Federal, State, and local levels to coordinate U.S. policy should H1N1 be identified in the U.S. swine herd, and she ensured the swine industry was included in the discussion. Under her leadership, APHIS and its partners developed action and communication plans that government and industry stakeholders praised for their inclusiveness and transparency. Once a case of H1N1 was identified, government officials spoke with one voice, providing a clear message to the public and stakeholders, assuring them of the safety of pork, and how APHIS and government efforts were protecting the swine industry and human health. Due to the groundwork she laid, the United States was able to avoid trade disruptions with Canada, and address concerns raised by Mexico. With foresight, vision, and an ability to collaborate and get others behind her ideas, Ms. Smith demonstrated genuine leadership in what could have been a major crisis. Her efforts dramatically minimized the impact on American agriculture, and were of innumerable value to this country. Ms. Smith has always demonstrated forward thinking. While she was Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Biotechnology Regulatory Services program, she recognized the growing importance of biotechnology in agriculture, as well as the need for more rigorous requirements for field tests of GE crops. She was instrumental in developing a program to help companies and researchers enhance their compliance with biotechnology regulatory requirements. Through its proactive approach to compliance, companies who participate in the Biotechnology Quality Management System are better able to analyze their operations, identify vulnerabilities, and see that they're addressed. The program she helped implement ensures accountability by confirming that trials of these necessary and beneficial crops are conducted responsibly. The program she created continues to grow, as more and more universities and small and large businesses recognize the value of participation. Ms. Smith's integrity, dedication, professionalism--and perhaps most importantly, her leadership--have served the United States well in all these endeavors. While she is not retiring from federal service, and has taken a new role as APHIS' Chief Advisor for Government, Academia, and Industry Partnership, I wanted to thank her for her 32 years of service with APHIS, her successful tenure as administrator, and her continued commitment to the American people and U.S. agriculture.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of H.R. 910. Mr. Chairman, for more than 2 years, we have watched Obama's Environmental Protection Agency try to expand its authority over American agriculture. Most telling of the EPA's irrational regulatory approach is how it has concluded that the breath we exhale and the gas that livestock expels are dangerous pollutants and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. During a recent Agriculture Committee hearing, the EPA Administrator said agriculture is currently exempt from the proposed regulations because the EPA has targeted only the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This doesn't provide any certainty to our farmers and ranchers, especially since, in a recent interview, Lisa Jackson was quoted as saying that the EPA will begin looking at regulating greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013, which counters her own remarks at that hearing. Additionally, a mythical exemption doesn't insulate farmers, ranchers and rural businesses from the higher energy and operating costs they'll face from other industries hit by these regulations. Whether it's the fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of food to the grocery store, this backdoor energy tax will increase the cost of doing business in rural America. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, and protect agriculture from EPA's overreach. This bill will prevent the EPA from running wild across America's farms and from subjecting our producers to more burdensome regulations that threaten to put them out of business. Rural America has never stopped being a good place to live; so it's our job to make sure it's a good place to make a living, too.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the piece of legislation before us today must be passed and placed on the President's desk as soon as possible if we want to prevent a possible blitz of regulatory burdens on our farmers and ranchers. The 6-month delay that the EPA was granted by the court this past Monday evening may have bought us more time, but the delay does not fix the underlying problem. The impact on those pesticide users who will be required to obtain a duplicative permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burden, the cost, or the real impact on their livelihoods. The only thing this extension provides farmers is 6 more months of regulatory uncertainty. We must act now to give our farmers the certainty they need to continue to produce the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the history of the world. If Congress does not act, more than 40 States will face increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting requirement process during a time when many States are already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. This would be a crushing blow to an already fragile economy. Giving EPA and the States more time to develop a permit system does nothing to minimize the unnecessary expense this uninformed court decision has imposed. Governments at all levels are facing a fiscal emergency. This exercise represents a tremendous waste of valuable time and resources. There is no need to send our States down a path of fiscal disaster when we have the opportunity to put a stop to it all today. It was always the intent of Congress to exempt pesticide use from the Clean Water Act. The decision of the court represents a fundamental ignorance of congressional intent that will not be rectified by a delay. Congress has no choice but to act now. I would like to serve note that on the Ag Committee as chairman, I'm very pleased with our point person's efforts on this behalf, Subcommittee Chairwoman Jean Schmidt. I'd like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Peterson, of the full committee, and subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Baca, for working with us in a very bipartisan way to address this issue. We all agree something has to be done, something needs to be done, and we have an opportunity to do it. With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This transfer of funds was established as part of an agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Brazilian Governments. As a result of this agreement negotiated by the USTR and USDA, Brazil agreed to suspend retaliation against U.S. exports. If this amendment passes and the funds are not transferred in compliance with the agreement, then the U.S. will be in violation of the agreement. Brazil would then have the right to immediately impose punitive tariffs on U.S. exports. What Mr. Kind's amendment does is invite a trade war. The U.S.-Brazil agreement is in place only until the 2012 farm bill is completed. This provides an opportunity for the U.S. to determine what adjustments to current law are necessary as a part of the next farm bill to bring the U.S. cotton program into compliance with the WTO ruling. This amendment should not be on this bill. It is a policy change. Please join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? This amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made in the context of the next new farm bill. We'll consider the farm bill next year in an open and transparent manner. We have a committee process that can review the merits of any proposal and all proposals. And they'll be debated and they'll be considered and allowed for the Members to offer their opinions and cast their votes. In fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under Chairman Peterson's leadership, we made significant reforms. Yes, cuts in the areas, lowering the overall payment caps significantly. But I guess the opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every last marketing tool has been eliminated. I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream in a 5-year farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They plan to work under current law. Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill. And I would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a bold, new, open legislative process. Maybe that's not how you did it in the past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee and on the floor in the same open way we're doing this. Let the process run its course. Let us work our way through this open process when it should be done in the next farm bill next year. Is that so much to ask?

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another outstanding subcommittee chairman on the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chairwoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds to conclude.

Mr. LUCAS. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the Congresswoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby). (Mrs. ROBY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I next yield 1 minute to the good gentleman from the great First District of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my neighbor from across the line in Kansas.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.