Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 have made all Americans appreciate our freedom and democracy more than ever. As we continue to get our lives back to normal, we must also realize how much has changed. Terrorism does not have to be directed only toward people. It can be directed at our modes of transportation, our communications infrastructure, or even our food supply. The United States Department of Agriculture along with the Food and Drug Administration is in charge of ensuring that Americans have a safe and abundant food supply. I would like to make it absolutely clear that because of USDA and FDA Americans enjoy the benefit of the safest food supply in the world. However, USDA and FDA have not had to clearly focus on how to prevent terrorism, bioterrorism, agroterrorism or whatever term you prefer to use in describing threats to America's food supply. Prevention is the key and long term planning should be the goal to continued food safety. Congress needs to take positive steps to help USDA perform what we ask of it. Today I am dropping a bill to help with prevention and long term planning. This legislation authorizes money to be spent on USDA's Agriculture Research Service laboratories so that there is adequate plant and animal research being performed to combat bioterrorism. Some of USDA's most important research facilities need to be modernized in order for the U.S. to stand ready in our new fight. The bill also provides funds to the Oklahoma City Counter Terrorism Institute for research to make sure that USDA, the Department of Justice, and other law enforcement and emergency preparedness organizations cooperate and have the proper techniques in place in the event of bioterrorism events. Further, Oklahoma State is authorized to receive a grant to establish a food safety research center. The Secretary of Agriculture will develop rapid response field test kits that can be quickly deployed to State and local agencies to determine if an act of bioterrorism has occurred. These are intended to quickly discover and confirm outbreaks of plant or animal diseases, pathogens, or other bioterrorism agents. The intramural agricultural bioterrorism research and development section of the bill will make USDA's ARS programs focus on enhancing regulatory agencies response time, encouraging academic and private sector partners to work together to maximize research benefits, strengthening linkages with the intelligence community to learn what research needs are most important and encouraging ARS to work with international organizations to control the spread of plant and animal diseases. The consortium for countermeasures against agricultural bioterrorism is truly valuable. Those colleges and universities that turn out animal and plant doctors will coordinate with Federal Agencies such as USDA to develop the long term program needed to combat bioterrorism. Furthermore, competitive grants will be provided through USDA that are directed toward the protection of the domestic food supply. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will be authorized to receive more funds to increase inspections at points of origin and to improve surveillance at points of entry. They will also be required to develop new and better techniques working with State and local agencies to control the outbreaks of plant and animal diseases. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) will be charged with enhancing its ability to inspect the safety of meat and poultry products. Like APHIS, FSIS will be expected to work with State and local agencies on creating the best possible means of sharing information and technology in order to reach the best results possible. This legislation is designed for the long-term benefit of producers and consumers alike.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, I would like to take note that the administration does not endorse this amendment. Nowhere do I see the administration endorsing the Kind amendment. Furthermore, when the question comes to the big picture of agriculture, perhaps some of the bureaucrats within the administration do not fully appreciate everything that we see going on. So they may be wrong in their general statement about it. But let us remember this: we have passed comprehensive farm bills since 1933, and the goal of every farm bill is ultimately to provide a safe supply of food and fiber to dress and feed this great Nation. And we have succeeded so well; we have never known a famine in this country in the history of Federal farm policy. That is nothing short of incredible. Now, the question about backlogs and the needs out there for conservation, we had hearings at full committee, we had hearings at subcommittee. We listened to 23 groups. We listened to everybody who had an interest in this issue, and we addressed every one of their needs. In the first year of funding in this bill, whether it is EQIP or farmland or every other provision of conservation, we address the needs. We wipe out the backlog, and we go farther. We go farther; $37 billion to be spent on conservation over the next 10 years. It is amazing. If you had said 10 years ago we could do that, people would have thought you were crazed. If you said 30 years ago we could do that, they would have even been even more amazed. We have risen to the occasion on the committee, we have addressed all of the needs out there, and we have done it within the resource allocation given to us by the Committee on the Budget. Yes, we still take care of production agriculture. You will still be able to eat; you will still be able to dress in this country, thanks to the American farmer and rancher. We owe them this. And, oh, yes, do not forget those conservation programs are cost- share, so when that farmer and rancher is doing things to preserve the soil and water, the wildlife, he is putting down a big chunk of his or her own money. There is nothing free about this. American farmers and ranchers are the ultimate stewards of the soil, of water, of the wildlife, of the environment, the ultimate stewards; and in this bill we help them become even better stewards, using their resources and some Federal resources together. Mr. Chairman, let us defeat this amendment, let us pass this bill, let us get on with the agenda of the future of production of agriculture and the environment in this country, and start our hearings on the next bill.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett). (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research in the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we need to step back and look at the underlying bill that this amendment proposes to change, a bill that makes a dramatic commitment to conservation in this country: 16 billion new dollars over a 10-year period, bringing conservation spending in the agricultural bill to $37 billion over the life of the bill; a $1 billion increase in the EQIP program; increasing the CRP program, the conservation reserve program, to 39 million acres; a million and a half new acres to be enrolled in WRP; $500 million over the life of the bill to go to eradicate and determine and make things happen when it comes to farm land protection; wildlife habitat incentive programs, an additional 25 million a year, ramping up to 50 million a year; a two million acre grasslands reserve program from scratch. It is a major commitment that this committee made. Now, why do I rise to oppose the Boehlert-Kind amendment? Why do I think that the Boehlert-Kind amendment will add more strings and more restrictions to conservation programs for farmers and ranchers out there? Let us look for a moment at EQIP. EQIP, the program that is voluntary, that farmers and ranchers use when they think the programs will help them in their conservation efforts and meet their environmental challenges. We had hearings across this topic, hearing from 23 different groups, and 4 basic topics came back from producers in EQIP: Provide more money; reform the priority area system; provide more flexibility; make the EQIP process fair for all producers. How did we respond in H.R. 2646? We increased EQIP spending from $200 million a year to $1.285 billion a year. Twelve billion over 10 years. The amendment drops that back to 10 billion, a reduction. Also in the amendment, they spend money on programs that were never requested by producers. The water quality incentives program that gives drinking water utilities, not producers, control over the program. Furthermore, this program adds monitoring and compliance requirements to the EQIP program and then charges the producer for those costs. Why would producers want more regulatory guidelines? Why would producers want to spend money on programs they never asked for or endorsed? Who controls the information collected by these utilities? Not us, and there is certainly no guarantee of confidentiality in this amendment. The second biggest producer problem with EQIP is that USDA sets up these priority districts with 65 percent of the EQIP funds going to the prioritized areas. What did that cause? Well, that led producers across the country to find that if they were in the wrong county or on the wrong side of the county line, if they were on the wrong side of the river, they were denied funding simply because they were outside of the priority area. H.R. 2646 makes the Secretary consider EQIP contracts on their own merit and value. This amendment retains the current law that forces USDA to set up priority areas that pit producer against producer. What was one of the other things that producers asked for? They repeatedly stated they wanted more flexibility. This amendment takes away flexibility. It forces the Secretary to commit at least 40 percent of the funds to four particular areas. In other words, 40 percent of the money is tied up from the very get-go, and if the producers do not request those programs as specified, then the money is wasted. The money is lost. It is not available to the rest of EQIP. What else did producers make clear? They made it clear that they wanted an EQIP program for all producers. H.R. 2646 changed the EQIP program to make the program fair to all producers. It allows contracts to vary from 1 year to 10 in length instead of the current 5- to 10- year contracts. This allows small producers who want to do shorter contracts to use the EQIP program. H.R. 2646 allows small producers to get paid in the same year they sign the contract. Currently they have to wait a year following the contract to receive their cost share money. H.R. 2646 makes the contract be considered by USDA on its own merit and value. What a concept, judging each contract on its own merit, and H.R. 2646 caps the money that can be spent per year per contract so that money is available to all producers. The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is biased toward certain producers.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, it ensures that small and socially-disadvantaged farmers are awarded a contract. It sounds meritorious on its surface, but does this mean that they are the cause of pollution or want a contract any worse than other producers? Of course not. Contracts should be considered on their own merit and value. Further, this amendment retains the current law that allows the largest producers to outbid small- to medium-sized farmers. I urge my colleagues to vote for their producers. Vote for this environmentally friendly underlying base bill H.R. 2646 and oppose this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I have remaining. I, too, must reluctantly rise and join in opposition with the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to the Clayton amendment that would pull valuable dollars away from the safety net in order to increase funding in rural development programs, but I believe we have made a great, great step in the right direction in funding in this base bill. Consider for a moment that farm programs and rural development programs are interdependent on each other and if we take $1 billion over the next 10 years away from the farm safety net, that that will ultimately hurt those producers who live and work in the rural areas. One of the programs that this amendment would direct money to is the community water assistance grant program. While that is a very meritorious goal, I would like to point out that H.R. 2646 provides $30 million in mandatory funding per year for this program. Under existing law this is a discretionary program. It has never been fully funded in recent times, and recognizing that, the Committee on Agriculture increased and expanded the program to help address those needs of rural communities that have difficulty in providing safe and adequate quantities of drinking water. Additionally, there are authorized, ongoing water and waste disposal loans and grants that the House has funded in the fiscal year 2002 ag appropriations bill with more than $55 million in loans and almost $600 million in grants. H.R. 2646 eliminates the authorized aggregate funding cap so that all necessary funds can be appropriated to meet this need. The Clayton amendment also directs funds to the Strategic Planning Initiative, and H.R. 2646 creates this initiative to increase community capacity building efforts at the local and regional levels. H.R. 2646 already provides $2 million per year that will allow entities to develop and to collaborate on these strategic plans to sustain rural economic growth in communities. To further enhance rural development efforts, H.R. 2646 authorizes the National Rural Development Partnership, which will promote interagency coordination among Federal departments and agencies to administer the policies and programs affecting rural areas. This partnership will serve as a resource for communities in working with rural development programs and will help streamline the available programs. Remember, the underlying bill makes permanent the Resource Conservation and Development councils which will not only increase the conservation and natural resources but also support economic development and enhance the environment and the quality of rural living. These provisions are clearly a statement in the underlying bill that we want to do everything that we can to encourage rural development, but unfortunately, we must work within the resources that are available to us. We must address the needs of the overall farm safety net, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment and ask for the passage of the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2646 and its conservation title, what might accurately be described by some as the greenest ever. American farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists of this country. We are the people the farm bill is intended to help. The farm bill's purpose is to assist in providing us with the tools to competitively produce food and fiber in the domestic and world markets. Furthermore, Congress encourages producers to do so in an environmentally friendly manner, while continuing to provide the American consumer with the cheapest, safest and most reliable food supply in the history of the world. After listening to 23 organizations and coalitions testify at three subcommittee hearings, and in an effort to accommodate the American producer and the environment, I laid out a plan in my own conservation bill to help producers and the American public by providing sound assistance to U.S. producers. It is critical to remember that not just one time but many times numerous groups asked us to place more money than we were able to place in every single existing program, and in most new programs. On the committee, both Republican and Democrat members worked to find a balanced bill so we would not have to come back to Congress and ask for ad hoc disaster bills year after year. We have found that balance in the manager's amendment to H.R. 2646. The centerpiece of the conservation title is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. Farmers and ranchers have to deal with a number of State and Federal environmental rules, regulations and laws; and many just want to be even better stewards of the land. The current program is only $200 million per year. The livestock coalition testified before us this year and asked for $2.5 billion per year. H.R. 2646 provides producers with $1.285 billion per year. Fifty percent of the money goes to crop producers and 50 percent goes to livestock producers. This is the exact requirement under current laws. This is the most important working-lands provision in the conservation title. Crop and fruit and vegetable producers are counting on this program to help them with all types of conservation efforts. The problem with EQIP was that there were priority areas that determined how and where the money was to be spent. If a producer was in an area that fell outside of these priority areas, chances were slim to none that they could receive Federal help. By reforming priority areas and allowing each contract to be considered on its own merit, I believe that we provided more money in the program that will help Congress assist all producers fairly and not penalize someone simply because their county is outside a designated priority area. The bill provides a maximum of $50,000 per year or $200,000 total over 10 years for all EQIP contracts. Some people want to ignore large animal feeding operations and contract growers. It would be hard for Congress to reach a desired environmental result if we ignore the needs of some producers. The payment limitation will ensure that the money is spread out fairly between small, medium, and large operations. As a matter of fact, the bill even changes EQIP contracts so that smaller producers can sign up for 1- to 10- year contracts. Plus, they can be paid in the same year in which they sign the contract. Both of these provisions were taken from my bill to help small producers. The Conservation Reserve Program is another important program. Many groups wanted to leave the program at its current level, while others wanted CRP to increase to as high as 45 million acres. H.R. 2646 reaches a balance by allowing nearly 40 million acres, or 39.2 million acres, to be exact, into the CRP. The new Grasslands Reserve Program is another important program based on my idea that allows 10- and 15- and 20-year contracts. To build consensus, the full committee added 30-year contracts and permanent easements. The committee supports permanent easements in GRP because it is a true working-lands program, not a land-idling program. The Committee on Agriculture followed the subcommittee's recommendation by including 150,000 acres per year of Wetland Reserve Program acreage, a million and a half over the life of the bill. And yes, it comes with a price tag of $1.84 billion. This is the largest increase of all of the major programs. H.R. 2646 provides $500 million worth of funding for the Farmland Protection Program. Since States must match 50 percent of its funding, it is hard to gauge whether all of this money will be used or simply go to the wealthiest States. Finally, H.R. 2646 provides $25 million per year, ramping up to $50 million per year for the wildlife habitat incentives program. My goal as the Conservation Subcommittee chairman was to secure a large sum of money for the conservation title in the new farm bill. I am thrilled to stand here today and say that we have an increase of over 75 percent in funding. The current programs spend $2.1 billion per year. H.R. 2646 will spend nearly $3.7 billion per year. Yes, $37 billion on conservation over the life of this farm bill. I heard concerns regarding some of the changes the committee made in its draft. I worked diligently to address the problems presented to me by various groups and am happy to say that we found compromise on issues such as swampbuster regulation and many wildlife concerns. Furthermore, I worked with the National Association of Conservation Districts and the committee to reach an agreement on technical assistance funding. In closing, I would simply say that this is a zero sum game. If we need more money in one area of the farm bill, it must come out of one of the other areas or programs or our own conservation funding. Simply, Mr. Chairman, support America's producers and the environment. Support H.R. 2646.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the following amendment to increase the funding for the methamphetamine enforcement and cleanup under the COPS program by $11.7 million. This increase is equal to the amount requested earlier this year by the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamines, of which I am a member. Mr. Chairman, meth is arguably the fastest growing drug threat in America today, with my home State of Oklahoma ranking number one, unbelievable as it may be, per capita in the Nation in the number of meth lab seizures. Over the past 7 years, the number of Oklahoma meth lab seizures has increased by an unbelievable 8,000 percent. With an average cleanup cost per lab of $3,500, that equals a substantial financial strain on Oklahoma as well as the Nation. Since 1994, DEA seizures of meth labs have increased more than sixfold nationwide. We are halfway through the year, and already there have been more DEA and State and local meth lab cleanups than in the entirety of the last year. Mr. Chairman, an increase in funding is vital for State and local enforcement programs in their struggle to combat meth production and distribution and to remove and dispose of hazardous materials at meth labs. I urge Members' support for our amendment and their help in our fight against this extremely destructive and addictive synthetic drug.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure at this particular time that I am in a position necessarily to agree to that. I would say this, though, in regards to both the outstanding chairman and the ranking member, that looking at this budget, clearly there is a $32 million increase for International Broadcasting Operations. I acknowledge that there is 7.8 percent increase in this particular fund and that my reduction would lower that increase to 5 percent. But the bottom line remains to me, we have a huge methamphetamine problem that is consuming our society here at home. I think we have an obligation to try and respond to that. I wish I could respond favorably to the gentleman, but I cannot.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Objection, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment that I am offering today will provide $3 million to be used for the rehabilitation of aging watershed dams. Public Law 106-472 authorizes USDA to assist local communities with rehabilitation of their aging flood-control dams constructed with USDA assistance. The authorizing legislation, which I authored, received widespread bipartisan support in both the Committee on Agriculture and on the House floor. Since the authorizing legislation was signed into law, NRCS has been flooded with requests from communities for assistance on rehabilitation for their aging dams. As of March of this year, 434 communities have requested rehabilitation assistance on more than 1,400 dams in 35 States. The cost to rehabilitate these dams is estimated to be in excess of $500 million. In fact, nearly 10,500 small watershed dams have been built in the United States since 1944. Many of these dams, which were built and designed with a 50-year life span, will reach their life expectancy over the next few years. These watershed projects are extremely important to our communities. They provide flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, soil erosion control, water quality improvement, wetland development, and wildlife habitat enhancement on more than 130 million acres in this Nation. These dams benefit thousands of people's lives every day. In fact, the small watershed program has proven to be one of our Nation's most successful public-private partnerships. The program represents an $8.5 billion Federal investment and an estimated $6 billion local investment in the infrastructure of this Nation. These completed small watershed projects have provided $2.20 in benefits for every $1 of cost. Very few Government projects can make that claim. We must continue to build on this program that our predecessors started 50 years ago. I hope that my colleagues will support this very important amendment to begin the process of rehabilitating these dams before we have a tragic dam failure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the agricultural assistance package, but I must state flatly for the record that I was extremely disappointed last week when this much-needed package was reduced from $6.5 billion to $5.5 billion in committee. A majority of the Committee on Agriculture chose not to support me or the chairman in a package that was equal to last year's assistance. This billion dollar cut will cost Oklahoma producers 10 cents a bushel for wheat and effectively kills the LDP graze-out program for 2002. That is unacceptable. This is the worst time to be cutting funding for agricultural producers. Commodity prices remain low, input prices are increasing and continue to increase dramatically. If anything, we should be increasing our funding for these programs. Yes, this assistance package is a good first step. It is insufficient to meet the needs of agricultural producers, especially in Oklahoma, but at least it is headed in the right direction. I want to assure my friends and colleagues here on the floor that while I think this will help producers across the country, and particularly in Oklahoma too, that I intend to work with the other body to ensure that the cuts made last week by the Stenholm-Boehner amendment are restored and that we provide our producers with that minimum $6.5 billion.

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).