[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 142 (Friday, October 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6514-H6520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM
AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I move to
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the
reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the
Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other
purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto,
insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference requested by
the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Peterson moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to the
bill H.R. 2642 (an Act to provide for the reform and
continuation of agricultural and other programs of the
Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for
other purposes) be instructed to (1) recede to section 1602
of the Senate amendment (relating to suspension of permanent
price support authority) and (2) recede to the Senate
position in title IV of the Senate amendment providing at a
minimum a five-year duration of the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program and other nutrition programs.
Mr. PETERSON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
[[Page H6515]]
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Lucas) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 1600
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This motion contains two instructions for the farm bill conferees.
One is to support the permanent law provisions in the Senate farm bill
and what we currently have and have had for years and years. The second
is to support the Senate position of a 5-year reauthorization of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
To be clear, this motion keeps intact the longstanding alliance
needed to pass a strong farm bill.
America's two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau
Federation and the National Farmers Union, both wrote in opposition to
the House's original consideration of H.R. 2642, the ``farm only'' farm
bill.
Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman wrote:
It is frustrating to our members that this broad coalition
of support for passage of the COMPLETE farm bill appears to
have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no
real stake in this farm bill, the economic vitality and jobs
agriculture provides in this country, or for the customers
ranchers and farmers serve.
The Farm Bureau joined a broad coalition of 532 agriculture,
conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop
insurance groups that expressed their opposition to splitting the
nutrition title from the farm bill and urged House leaders to pass a 5-
year farm bill.
When such a large group of organizations, most with different if not
conflicting priorities, can come together and agree on something, we
should listen to them. Doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a
stake in this bill recommends does not make sense, and it is not the
way to achieve success, in my opinion.
I will insert both the Farm Bureau and coalition letters into the
Record.
The farm bill's nutrition program needs to be on the same timeline as
the bill's other provisions. It makes no sense to de-couple farm and
food programs; they go hand in hand. I worry that separating the two of
them sets us on a path to no farm bill in the future. The Senate farm
bill preserves the partnership between farm and food programs, and we
should defer to that approach.
As Farmers Union president Roger Johnson wrote:
Repealing permanent law would remove the element of the
bill which would force Congress to act on a piece of
legislation that provides a safety net for farmers and
ranchers and the food insecure in this country, and protects
our Nation's natural resources.
I will insert the Farmers Union letter into the Record.
The permanent law provisions are important to ensuring that Congress
revisits farm programs every 5 years. These are farm laws from 1938 and
1949 that, if Congress does not pass a new farm bill, would go into
effect. Actually, because we have not passed a farm bill at this point,
and it expired on October 1, we actually are operating under permanent
law right now.
Obviously, farming has changed a lot since then, and everybody knows
these programs don't make a lot of sense today, but that's the point of
permanent law. It is the reason that we work together and we pass a new
farm bill, because the alternative is not very acceptable.
Farm bills are traditionally a compromise, and there are things that
some people like and things that some people don't like. Permanent law
encourages both groups to work together because no one wants to go back
to the outdated and unworkable farm programs of 1938 and 1949.
Without these permanent law provisions, it will make it more
difficult to make changes, improvements, and reforms over time as we
discover that they are needed.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion
to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.
National Farmers Union,
July 11, 2013.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: National Farmers Union (NFU)
strongly urges you to vote against the rule and final passage
of H.R. 2642, a bill that divorces the nutrition title from
the rest of the farm bill and repeals permanent law.
The two largest general farm organizations in the country
have spoken out multiple times in opposition to separating
nutrition programs from the farm bill. Splitting the bill is
a shortsighted strategy that would effectively undermine the
long-standing bipartisan coalition of rural and urban members
that have traditionally supported passage of a unified bill.
We are also very concerned that including a provision that
would repeal permanent law did not receive any outside
scrutiny or ability to weigh in through hearings. Repealing
permanent law would remove the element in the bill which
would force Congress to act on a piece of legislation that
provides a safety net for farmers, ranchers, the food
insecure and protects our nation's natural resources.
Last week, NFU led a coalition of 531 other organizations
in writing a letter calling for the House of Representatives
not to split the bill. This broad-based coalition, composed
of agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance,
forestry, energy and crop insurance companies and
organizations is now being undermined by extreme partisan
political organizations that do not represent constituents
affected by the farm bill.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter. We urge
you to vote against the rule and final passage of H.R. 2642
and encourage leadership to bring a unified bill to the floor
as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Roger Johnson,
President.
____
American Farm
Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2013.
The Hon.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep.: The American Farm Bureau Federation is our
nation's largest general farm organization, representing more
than 6 million member families in all 50 states and Puerto
Rico. Our members represent the grassroots farmers and
ranchers who produce the wide range of food and fiber crops
for our customers here and around the world. To achieve this,
farmers and ranchers depend on the variety of programs such
as risk management, conservation, credit and rural
development contained in H.R. 2642 that is scheduled to be
voted on by the full House today.
Last night the House Rules Committee approved the rule for
considering H.R. 2642, which also includes separating the
nutrition title from the remaining provisions of H.R. 1947, a
complete farm bill that was reported out of the House
Agriculture Committee by a 36-10 bipartisan vote.
We are very disappointed in this action. The ``marriage''
between the nutrition and farm communities and our
constituents in developing and adopting comprehensive farm
legislation has been an effective, balanced arrangement for
decades that has worked to ensure all Americans and the
nation benefits. In spite of reports to the contrary, this
broad food and farm coalition continues to hold strong
against partisan politics. In fact, last week, more than 530
groups representing the farm, conservation, credit, rural
development and forestry industries urged the House to not
split the bill. Similar communications were relayed from the
nutrition community. Yet today, in spite of the broad-based
bipartisan support for keeping the farm bill intact, you will
vote on an approach that seeks to affect a divorce of this
longstanding partnership. It is frustrating to our members
that this broad coalition of support for passage of a
complete farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor
of interests that have no real stake in this farm bill, the
economic vitality and jobs agriculture provides or the
customers farmers and ranchers serve.
We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition
title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill
that can be successfully conferenced with the Senate's
version, approved by both the House and Senate and signed by
the President.
We are also very much opposed to the repeal of permanent
law contained in H.R. 2642. This provision received
absolutely no discussion in any of the process leading up to
the passage of the bill out of either the House or Senate
Agriculture Committees. To replace permanent law governing
agricultural programs without hearing from so much as a
single witness on what that law should be replaced with is
not how good policy is developed.
As recently as last December, the threat of reverting to
permanent law was the critical element that forced Congress
to pass an extension of the current farm bill when it proved
impossible to complete action on the new five-year farm
bill--an action that not only provided important safety net
programs for this year, it ensured Congress would have time
this year to consider comprehensive reforms that contribute
billions to deficit reduction.
We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against
final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end
permanent law provisions for agriculture.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
[[Page H6516]]
____
July 2, 2013.
The Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, H-232 The
Capitol, Washington, DC
Dear Speaker Boehner: America's agriculture, conservation,
rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop
insurance companies and organizations strongly urge you to
bring the Farm Bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) back to the Floor as
soon as possible. This important legislation supports our
nation's farmers, ranchers, forest owners, food security,
natural resources and wildlife habitats, rural communities,
and the 16 million Americans whose jobs directly depend on
the agriculture industry.
Farm bills represent a delicate balance between America's
farm, nutrition, conservation, and other priorities, and
accordingly require strong bipartisan support. It is vital
for the House to try once again to bring together a broad
coalition of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to
provide certainty for farmers, rural America, the environment
and our economy in general and pass a five-year farm bill
upon returning in July. We believe that splitting the
nutrition title from the rest of the bill could result in
neither farm nor nutrition programs passing, and urge you to
move a unified farm bill forward.
Thank you for your support. We look forward to our
continued dialogue as the process moves forward and stand
ready to work with you to complete passage of the new five-
year Farm Bill before the current law expires again on
September 30, 2013.
Sincerely,
1st Farm Credit Services, Advanced Biofuels Association, Ag
Credit, ACA, AgChoice, AgGeorgia, AgHeritage Farm Credit
Services AgriBank, Agriculture Council of Arkansas
Agriculture Energy Coalition, Agricultural Retailers
Association AgriLand, Agri-Mark, Inc., AgCarolina, AgCountry,
AgFirst, AgPreference, AgSouth, AgStar Financial Services,
ACA AgTexas, Alabama Ag Credit, Alabama Cotton Commission,
Alabama Dairy Producers, Alabama Farm Credit, Alabama Farmers
Cooperative, Alabama Farmers Federation.
Alabama Pork Producers, Alaska Farmers Union, American
AgCredit, American Agriculture Movement, American Association
of Avian Pathologists, American Association of Bovine
Practitioners, American Association of Crop Insurers,
American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners,
American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians,
American Bankers Association, American Beekeeping Federation,
American Biogas Council, American Coalition for Ethanol,
American Cotton Shippers Association, American Crystal Sugar
Company, American Dairy Science Association, American Farm
Bureau Federation, American Farmers and Ranchers Mutual
Insurance Company, American Farmland Trust, American Feed
Industry Association, American Fruit and Vegetable Processors
and Growers Coalition, American Forest Foundation, American
Forest Resource Council, American Forests, American Honey
Producers Association.
American Malting Barley Association, American Pulse
Association, American Public Works Association, American
Sheep Industry Association, American Society of Agronomy,
American Sugar Alliance, American Sugar Cane League, American
Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Society of Farm
Managers and Rural Appraisers, American Soybean Association,
American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Agriculture
Coalition, Animal Health Institute, WAArborOne, Archery Trade
Association, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona
BioIndustry Association, Arizona Wool Producers Association,
Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Farmers Union, Arkansas Rice
Federation, Arkansas Rice Producers' Group, Arkansas State
Sheep Council, Associated Logging Contractors--Idaho,
Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
Associated Oregon Loggers, Association of American
Veterinary Medical Colleges, Association of Equipment
Manufacturers, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Association of Veterinary Biologics Companies, Badgerland
Financial, Bio Nebraska Life Sciences Association,
BioForward, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Black Hills
Forest Resource Association, Bongard's Creamery, Boone and
Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Calcot,
California Agricultural Irrigation Association, California
Association of Resource Conservation Districts, California
Association of Winegrape Growers, California Avocado
Commission, California Canning Peach Association, California
Farm Bureau Federation, California Farmers Union, California
Forestry Association, California Pork Producers Association,
California Wool Growers Association, Calvin Viator, Ph.D. and
Associates, LLC.
The Campbell Group, Can Manufacturers Institute, Canned
Food Alliance, Cape Fear Farm Credit, Capital Farm
Credit, Carolina Cotton Growers Cooperative, Catch-A-Dream
Foundation, Catfish Farmers of America, Central Kentucky,
ACA, Ceres Solutions LLP, Chrisholm Trail Farm Credit,
CHS, Inc., CoBank, Colonial Farm Credit, Colorado
BioScience Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado
Timber Industry Association, Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation, Connecticut Forest & Park Association,
Connecticut United for Research Excellence, Inc., The
Conservation Fund, Continental Dairy Products, Inc,
Cooperative Credit Company, Cooperative Network, Cora-
Texas Mfg. Co., Inc.
Corn Producers Association of Texas, Cotton Growers
Warehouse Association, Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology, Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, Crop
Insurance Professionals Association, Crop Science Society of
America, CropLife America, Dairy Farmers of America, Dairy
Farmers Working Together, Dairy Producers of Utah, Dairylea
Cooperative Inc., Darigold, Inc, Delta Council, Delta
Waterfowl, Deltic Timber Corporation, Ducks Unlimited, DUDA
(A. Duda & Sons, Inc.), Eastern Regional Conference of
Council of State Governments, Empire State Forest Products
Association, Environmental and Energy Study Institute,
Environmental Law & Policy Center, Family Farm Alliance,
Family Forest Foundation--Washington, Farm Credit Bank of
Texas, Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation.
Farm Credit Council, Farm Credit Council Services, Farm
Credit East, Farm Credit MidSouth, Farm Credit of Central
Florida, Farm Credit of Central Oklahoma, Farm Credit of
Enid, Farm Credit of Florida, Farm Credit of Maine, Farm
Credit of Ness City, Farm Credit of New Mexico, Farm Credit
of North West Florida, Farm Credit of Southern Colorado, Farm
Credit of SW Kansas, Farm Credit of Western Arkansas, Farm
Credit of Western Kansas, Farm Credit of Western Oklahoma,
Farm Credit Services of America, Farm Credit Services of
Illinois, Farm Credit South, Farm Credit Virginias, Farm
Credit West, Farmer Mac, FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative, FCS
Financial.
FCS of America, FCS of Colusa-Glenn, FCS of East/Central
Oklahoma, FCS of Hawaii, FCS of Illinois, FCS of Mandan, FCS
of Mid-America, FCS of North Dakota, FCS of Southwest,
Federation of Animal Science Societies, First District
Association, First FCS, First South Farm Credit, FLBA of
Kingsburg, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Florida
Sugar Cane League, Forest Investment Associates, Forest
Landowners Association, Forest Products National Labor
Management Committee, Forest Resource Association Inc.,
Fresno-Madera Farm Credit, Frontier Farm Credit, Fruit
Growers Supply Company, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Georgia
Farm Bureau Federation, Georgia Forestry Association.
Georgia Pork Producers Association, Giustina Resources,
LLC, Global Forest Partners LP, GMO Renewable Resources,
Great Plains Ag Credit, Great Plains Canola Association,
Green Diamond Resource Company, Greenstone, GROWMARK, Inc,
Growth Energy, Hancock Timber Resource Group, Hardwood
Federation, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Sugar Farmers,
Heritage Land Bank, Holstein Association USA, Idaho Ag
Credit, Idaho Dairymen's Association, Idaho Farmers Union,
Idaho Forest Group, Idaho Forest Owners Association, Idaho
Grain Producers Association, Illinois Biotechnology Industry
Organization--iBIO, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Farmers
Union.
Illinois Pork Producers Association, Independent Beef
Association of North Dakota, Independent Community Bankers of
America, Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc., Indiana Farmers Union,
Indiana Health Industry Forum, Innovative Mississippi--
Strategic Biomass Solutions, Intermountain Forest
Association, Intertribal Agriculture Council, Iowa Farm
Bureau Federation, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Pork Producers
Association, Iowa Sheep Industry Association, lowaBio,
Irrigation Association, Irving Woodlands, LLC, Izaak Walton
League of America, John Deere Crop Insurance, Kansas
Cooperative Council, Kansas Dairy, Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas
Farmers Union, Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers
Association, Kansas Pork Association, Kansas Sheep
Association.
Kentucky Forest Industries Association, Kentucky Pork
Producers Association, Land Improvement Contractors of
America, Land O'Lakes, Land Stewardship Project, Land Trust
Alliance, Lone Rock Timber Management Co., Longview Timber
LLC, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Louisiana Forest
Association, Louisiana Rice Growers Association, Louisiana
Rice Producers' Group, Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative,
Inc., Lula-Westfield, LLC, Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers
Cooperative, Maryland Association of Soil Conservation
Districts, Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Maryland Grain
Producers Association, Maryland Sheep Breeders' Association,
Inc., Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.,
Massachusetts Forest Alliance, MassBio, MBG Marketing/The
Blueberry People, Michigan Agri-Business Association,
Michigan Farm Bureau.
Michigan Farmers Union, Michigan Pork Producers
Association, Michigan Sugar Company, Michigan-California
Timber Company, Mid-West Dairymen's Co., MidAtlantic Farm
Credit, Midwest Dairy Coalition, Midwest Environmental
Advocates, Midwest Food Processors Association, Milk
Producers Council, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, Minnesota
Canola Council, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota
Farm Bureau Federation, Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota
Forest Industries, Minnesota Grain & Feed Association,
Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers, Minnesota Pork Producers
Association, Minnesota Timber Producers Association,
Mississippi River Trust, Missouri Coalition for the
Environment, Missouri Dairy Association, Missouri Farm Bureau
Federation, Missouri Farmers Union.
Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Sheep Producers,
Missouri Soybean Association, The Molpus Woodlands Group,
Montana Grain Growers Association, Montana Farmers Union,
Mule Deer Foundation, National
[[Page H6517]]
Association of Counties, National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, National All-Jersey, National
Alliance of Forest Owners, National Association for the
Advancement of Animal Science, National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, National Association of Conservation
Districts, National Association of Farmer Elected Committees,
National Association of Federal Veterinarians, National
Association of Forest Service Retirees, National Association
of FSA County Office Employees, National Association of
Resource Conservation & Development Councils, National
Association of State Conservation Agencies, National
Association of State Foresters, National Association of
University Forest Resource Programs, National Association of
Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National
Bobwhite Conservation Initiative.
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Coalition
for Food and Agricultural Research, National Conservation
District Employees Association, National Corn Growers
Association, National Cotton Council, National Cotton
Ginners' Association, National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Farm to School
Network, National Grange, National Grape Cooperative
Association, Inc., National Milk Producers Federation,
National Network of Forest Practitioners, National Pork
Producers Council, National Renderers Association, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Sorghum
Producers, National Sunflower Association, National Trappers
Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, National
Woodland Owners Association, Nebraska Cooperative Council,
Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, Nebraska Farmers Union,
Nebraska Pork Producers Association.
Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, Nevada Wool Growers
Association, New England Farmers Union, New Jersey Farm
Bureau, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico
Sorghum Association, New York Farm Bureau, Inc., New York
Forest Owners Association, Nexsteppe, North American Grouse
Partnership, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc,
North Carolina Forestry Association, North Carolina Pork
Council, North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Lamb & Wool
Producers, North Dakota Pork Producers Council, Northarvest
Bean Growers Association, Northeast Dairy Farmers
Cooperatives, Northeast States Association for Agricultural
Stewardship, Northern California Farm Credit, Northern Canola
Growers Association, Northern Forest Center, Northern Pulse
Growers Association, Northwest Dairy Association, Northwest
Farm Credit Services.
Novozymes North America Inc, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio
Pork Producers Council, Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers
Association, Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council,
Oklahoma Farmers Union, Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association,
Oklahoma Pork Council, Oklahoma Seed Trade Association,
Oklahoma Sorghum Association, Oklahoma Wheat Growers
Association, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Oregon Cherry
Growers, Inc., Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Oregon
Farmers Union. Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Oregon Small
Woodland Association, Oregon Women in Timber, Orion the
Hunter's Institute, Panhandle-Plains Land Bank, Partners
for Sustainable Pollination, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau,
Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
Pennsylvania Forest Products Association, Pheasants
Forever, Plains Cotton Cooperative Association, Plains Cotton
Growers, Inc., Plum Creek Timber Company, Pollinator
Partnership, Pope and Young Club, Port Blakely Tree Farms,
LP, Potlatch Corporation, Prairie Rivers Network, Premier
Farm Credit, Puerto Rico Farm Credit, Quality Deer
Management, Association, Quail Forever, Rayonier Inc., Red
Gold, Inc, Red River Forests, LLC, Red River Valley Sugarbeet
Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, Resource
Management Service, LLC, Rhode Island Sheep Cooperative, Rio
Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union,
Rolling Plains Cotton Growers, Inc., Ruffed Grouse Society.
The Rural Broadband Association, Rural Community Assistance
Partnership, Select Milk Producers, Inc., Seneca Foods,
Shasta Forests Timberlands, LLC, Sidney Sugars, Inc., Sierra
Pacific Industries, Society of American Foresters, Soil and
Water Conservation Society, Soil Science Society of America,
South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, South Dakota
Association of Cooperatives, South Dakota Biotech
Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, South Dakota Pork
Producers, South Dakota Wheat Growers, South East Dairy
Farmers Association, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers
Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain Association,
Southeast Milk Inc., Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern
Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, Southern Peanut Farmers
Federation, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton Growers
Association of Texas.
Southern States Cooperative, Inc., Southwest Council of
Agribusiness, Southwest Georgia Farm Credit, St. Albans
Cooperative, Staplcotn, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders,
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Sustainable Forest
Initiative, Sustainable Northwest, Tennessee Clean Water
Network, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, Tennessee Forestry
Association, Tennessee Renewable Energy & Economic
Development Council, Texas Ag Finance, Texas Agricultural
Cooperative Council, Texas Farmers Union, Texas Forestry
Association, Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute, Texas
Land Bank, Texas Pork Producers Association, Texas Rice
Producers Legislative Group, Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers'
Association, Timberland Investment Resources, Timber Products
Company, The Amalgamated Sugar Company.
The Bank of Commerce, The Nature Conservancy, The Small
Woodland Owners Association of Maine, Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, Trust for Public Land, United
Dairymen of Arizona, United FCS, U.S. Animal Health
Association, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola
Association, U.S. Cattlemen's Association, U.S. Dry Bean
Council, U.S. Pea & Lentil Trade Association, U.S. Rice
Producers Association, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, USA Dry Pea
& Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, Utah Farmers Union,
Utah Wool Growers Association, Virginia Farm Bureau
Federation, Virginia Forestry Association, Virginia Grain
Producers Association, Virginia Pork Industry Board, Virginia
Nursery & Landscape Association, Virginia State Dairymen's
Association.
Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association,
Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Farmers Union, Washington
State Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington State Dairy
Federation, Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative, Wells Timberland
REIT, Western AgCredit, Western Growers, Western Pea & Lentil
Growers, Western Peanut Growers Association, Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy, Western Sugar Cooperative, Western
United Dairymen, The Westervelt Company, Weyerhaeuser
Company, Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., Wild Sheep Foundation,
Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, Wildlife
Mississippi, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, Wisconsin
Farmers Union, Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Pork
Association, Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association, Women
Involved in Farm Economics, World Wildlife Fund, Wyoming
Sugar Company, Yankee Farm Credit, Yosemite Farm Credit.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am so overjoyed to rise today to be at this point in
the farm bill process, where we are on the verge of sitting down with
our friends in the other body and beginning to put the final bill
together. This has been a long and challenging process for both myself,
the ranking member Mr. Peterson, and all members of the House
Agriculture Committee.
We have touched on many subject matters. We have had the most amazing
open markups in committee, with amendments almost beyond galore. Twice
we have been across the floor of this great body in, essentially, an
open process, considering literally 100-plus amendments almost every
time it seems.
From that process we are now, with a product, ready to go to
conference with the other body. This motion, and the next two sense of
Congress resolutions, address several things that were decided on the
floor of this House.
While I appreciate mightily the opportunity to reassess the judgments
of the body, I would just simply say this, looking at the various
points: my good friend the ranking member is exactly right. This motion
would restore 1938 and 1949 law as the permanent base farm bill.
Franklin Roosevelt was President, of course, when the 1938 law was
signed into place. President Truman signed the 1949 law into place.
Those laws were designed at a time when I suspect the average tractor
was 55 horsepower. I suppose the average dairy might have been 40 cows.
They were put in place on the assumptions of parity and production
controls and allotments and production history, a lot of things that
have long since faded away in subsequent farm bills.
I know my friend and a number of groups, in good faith, advocate that
we keep that 1938 and 1949 law in place. But I would suggest to my
colleagues, the open process we have been through, the open process we
are about to have in conference, if we can come up with good language
that a majority of both bodies can agree on, that a fellow down at the
White House will sign if it is good policy, maybe the conference should
be given the option, as is now the case within the farm bill language,
of using the 2013 farm bill as base.
The Senate retains the old permanent law from 1938 and 1949. At
present, we don't do that in the House draft, so we have got the
ability to discuss it. We have got the ability to work on it. I,
personally, think that's a good thing.
Now, the other portion of this motion, and this reflects, again, some
very serious, sincere differences of
[[Page H6518]]
opinion, both in committee and on the floor, about how to address the
fundamental nature of the nutrition title. This House decided that the
reauthorization should be for 3 years instead of what would be the more
traditional concurrent authorization with the rest of the farm bill. I
think every Member has to vote their own conscience on that issue.
But, understand: the motion, as structured, would take away the
potential option for moving permanent law from the Roosevelt-Truman
administration to the present day, and it would also restore that 5-
year authorization on nutrition programs, things my colleagues have to
take into consideration and factor.
Mr. Speaker, I note to my colleague I am my only speaker on this
issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa), one of our subcommittee ranking members.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, as well
as the chair from Oklahoma.
I rise to support this motion to instruct, and let me tell you why.
The farm bill traditionally, around this place, has been one of the
most bipartisan efforts that we engage in. Unfortunately, for over the
last year, it hasn't seemed that way.
I think that the importance of maintaining the permanent law of 1938
and 1949 is not to suggest that farming today is as it was then. Of
course it is not.
But the fact is that it has always provided, in the past efforts,
back in 2008, and back in the last three or four decades, the sort of
incentive necessary to come together, in a bipartisan fashion, to put
together a bill that reflects not just current farming needs throughout
this great country of ours today, but also to focus on the necessary
importance of the nutrition programs that go to so many of those in our
society that are in need.
Now, that brings me to the second point that is reflected in the
Senate measure, that is reflected in this motion to instruct, and that
is, bifurcating the nutrition programs. It makes absolutely no sense.
There has been a tradition here that I think has worked well in
maintaining the incredible amount of cornucopia of food that we produce
in this Nation and also never forgetting those in our society who are
most in need. That marriage between the nutrition programs, which have
benefited from the food that our farmers and ranchers and dairymen
produce, and those who need a helping hand has worked well.
So, therefore, why should we separate it?
Why should we have a 3-year nutrition program instead of the 5-year
that marries and complements the ongoing farm programs?
So, for all of those reasons, I support this motion to instruct.
And let me finally say, the time has come. The time has come to put
away the posturing, go to work, go to conference, and pass a farm bill
that reflects America's needs.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), one of our subcommittee ranking
members.
Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the FARRM Act, which is H.R. 2642, reauthorizes Federal
farm, rural development, and agricultural trade programs through fiscal
year 2018, or 5 years.
However, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act,
which passed last month, reauthorized nutrition programs for only 3
years. This separation is problematic, and it needs to be addressed.
Farming and feeding go hand in hand, and a comprehensive farm bill
recognizes this connection. We can restore this connection by ensuring
a 5-year reauthorization for all programs that come under the farm
bill.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the link between nutrition and farm
communities. Support a farm bill that meets the nutritional needs of
all Americans.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion and
thank the ranking member for his work. Reauthorizing nutrition programs
for 5 years is sound policy and the right thing to do.
The farm bill has always been built on a successful coalition of
rural and urban communities and Members of Congress who come together
in a bipartisan way to create responsible farm and food policy.
By authorizing farm policies for 5 years, but only extending
nutrition programs for 3 years, we are leaving millions of working
families, seniors, and children with great uncertainty when they need
our help the most.
Let's be honest. Changing the authorization for nutrition programs
reduces the likelihood of Congress passing a bipartisan farm bill that
works for our farmers, food producers, and families. So, too, does
repealing permanent farm law, as the current House bill does.
For the last 2 years, Congress has failed to act. Why are we making
it even harder to pass a final farm bill?
SNAP helps nearly 47 million Americans, including over 22,000 in my
district, afford nutritious food and not go hungry. It has proven to be
efficient and effective with error rates at historic lows. It helps
Americans at every district across the country by preventing them from
falling into poverty and lifting them up through job training and
education programs.
I am proud that I was able to include a SNAP employment and training
pilot program modeled after a program from my home State of Washington
in the nutrition bill that will go to conference.
Even at the height of the recession, 60 percent of those in
Washington's programs found employment, and more than half were off
assistance in 2 years. This is a commonsense policy to increase
education and job training while decreasing the number of people who
need SNAP.
This bill has been hijacked long enough. Let's get back to the
bipartisan, cooperative process in which the House Agriculture
Committee drafted the farm bill. Let's not make things more difficult
than they need to be.
We were sent here to do our jobs, to govern and pass policies that
will grow our economy, and it is no secret that Congress has been
failing at fulfilling this basic responsibility.
So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to authorize both farm
and nutrition programs for the full 5 years. Let's get to work and pass
a 5-year farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a new member of the committee--
well, an old member. He was a member of the Ag Committee back in the
1970s.
{time} 1615
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the work that has been
done here in this bill. I want to commend Chairman Lucas and Ranking
Member Collin Peterson for the tireless work that you and your staffs
and your subcommittee chairs put into writing this legislation. It is
the product of many years and a wealth of experience that has brought
consumers and producers together, that has brought urban and rural
people together, and that has produced an abundant supply of food for
people here in this country and all over the world.
American agriculture is just absolutely one of the wonders of the
world. I believe that this motion helps to keep that great success and
progress moving forward.
Last but not least, I want to say how refreshing it was to be part of
that committee markup. As you know, I was on a 32-year hiatus--the
longest in history.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. NOLAN. I have been asked time and time again how things are
different from the way they were then. Believe me, there are a lot of
differences, big and small; but one of the most refreshing things was
to be a part of that Ag Committee open, bipartisan, free-wheeling
markup, where anybody and everybody got their moment, got an
opportunity to offer their resolution, got an opportunity to have a
vote on it.
[[Page H6519]]
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind of spirit. That is the
kind of spirit that has moved this country and accounted for so much of
our great success over the years.
I urge adoption of this motion.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to
instruct the conference committee to reauthorize America's nutrition
and antihunger programs for 5 years.
At the moment, the majority's farm bill extends crop insurance and
other agricultural programs for 5 years, but the nutrition portion only
reauthorizes food stamps and other programs for 3 years. This 2-year
discrepancy would allow for all kinds of shenanigans the next time
these programs are up for debate. We should stop that from happening
now.
When this majority severed the nutrition title from the farm bill,
they broke a longstanding bipartisan compact on antihunger initiatives
that goes back decades, connecting the programs that help farmers
produce and the programs that help poor families escape hunger. This
arrangement separates farm programs from nutrition programs on a
permanent basis. They break the coalition that supports this bill.
Quite honestly, it is being done to put food stamps at risk. Indeed,
this is a shell game.
The critical antihunger programs have been supported by Republicans
and Democrats all across the country--the east coast, the west coast,
the heartland--because hunger is not a partisan issue. We all have a
vested interest in ending hunger in our country. But with this farm
bill, the House Republican majority has betrayed this fight. By cruelly
cutting $40 billion from food stamps, our most important antihunger
program, they are telling over 4 million of our most vulnerable
citizens--children, seniors, veterans, the disabled--you may not know
where your next meal is coming from.
The majority is making this $40 billion cut, robbing poor families of
food, even while continuing to dole out over twice as much--$90
billion--in crop insurance subsidies, taxpayer dollars, to some of the
Nation's wealthiest families and agribusiness.
In the Crop Insurance Program, there are no income eligibility
requirements. You can be a billionaire and still collect the subsidy.
In the food stamp program, you can only make up to $23,000. With that,
you can only spend almost $1.50 on a meal. That's the inequity we are
talking about here.
There should be a condemnation of what that House majority is trying
to do to hunger and nutrition programs--and there is. It has been near
universal. Nutrition, agriculture, homeless, seniors, education, and
health care organizations--even Republican leaders like former
Republican Senator Bob Dole--all have announced their opposition to
this reckless and extreme plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Let us understand what the cuts to nutrition programs
that the majority is suggesting mean in terms of our children.
Roughly 20 percent of these households that receive the benefits have
children under the age of 18; 23 percent have children that are 4 years
old and under. The damage that hunger does to children is irreparable.
If they go to school hungry, they cannot learn; and if they cannot
learn, they cannot succeed.
I only ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the data.
Read the report in The Lancet journal just in the last week or so that
tells you what the scientific data is that shows what the impact of
hunger is on children's brains and their ability to learn.
We know that the learning period for children is from zero to 3. Why
would we want to do irreparable harm to the children in this Nation by
cutting off food, of which the United States has a great abundance--and
overabundance--and yet we want to cut $40 billion from the food stamp
program? It is reckless and it is extreme.
I just say to my colleagues, if the farm programs are being
reauthorized for 5 years, the nutrition programs should be reauthorized
for 5 years, just like they have in the past, with that coalition that
is coming from all over the country, region by region, Democrats and
Republicans, in one unified farm bill. I urge my colleagues to go in
that direction.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the remarks of our colleague from
Connecticut.
The SNAP program is in jeopardy, which means children's health is in
jeopardy, and we should extend the ARRA-created benefits as well as to
fully fund, not cut, the SNAP program.
My colleague referred to the article this past week in The Lancet,
the prominent medical journal. Allow me to quote from that.
Many studies have shown positive associations between
receipt of SNAP . . . and a lower risk of anemia, obesity,
poor health, hospital admission for failure to thrive, and
reports of child abuse and neglect. Children aged 5-9 years
of SNAP-participating families have better academic outcomes
and less obesity than children in nonparticipating families.
Between 1961 and 1975, the program was implemented county
by county, thus, allowing for comparison across counties that
differed only by SNAP availability. In SNAP-available
counties there was . . . a significant increase . . . in mean
birthweight for both Black and White Americans, compared with
those counties where SNAP was not available.
As the Speaker knows, that is an important measure associated with
infant health.
Children of low-income women in SNAP-available counties
were less likely to have metabolic syndrome [ill health such
as diabetes] in adulthood, and women who had received food
stamps during early childhood were more likely to be
economically self-sufficient.
These are children who had the benefits of SNAP. As adults, they were
healthier. This seems, to me, to be a very important point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOLT. The societal benefits of food stamps extend far beyond a
temporary reduction of hunger pangs. The benefits last for years--even
into the next generation. Why on Earth would we consider reducing
support for such an important humane and, yes, economically beneficial
program?
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would note to my colleagues that many of the points of great merit
offered over the course of the discussion of this motion were points
debated and discussed on the floor and in committee. I respect the
sincerity of all of my colleagues, but we need to remember this motion
has two key central points:
Number one, the 1938 and 1949 law remain permanent. We take away the
conference's ability to negotiate that point with the United States
Senate. Take it away, take it off the table is the goal of this motion
to instruct.
The second point, of course, deals with the authorization on SNAP.
Should it be 3 years? Should it be 5 years? That is the question you
have to decide in this motion. Do you take away the House's ability to
have the option of making whatever we can all agree on permanent law?
Do you insist that we continue to have the food program, SNAP, run
concurrently with the rest of the farm bill? It's a very simple set of
issues to consider.
From my own perspective, I would ask the House to allow the
conference committee as much flexibility as possible in negotiating
with the other body--as much flexibility as possible--and that would
require rejecting the motion to instruct.
With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. I look forward to the joys of hopefully not
quite as challenging a conference as this first 2 years of this process
has been but, nonetheless, an acknowledgment that we need to get our
work done in a timely fashion and bring a product back that a majority
of this body can accept and support.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I just say that we have had a way to deal
with this for the last 40-some years
[[Page H6520]]
that has worked pretty well. I think it is a big mistake, as most
groups that are involved in the farm bill feel it is a mistake, to
eliminate permanent law and to have a situation where one part of the
bill is authorized for a different length of time than the other.
People that have been involved in this for a long time think this is a
mistake. I think it is a mistake.
I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I yield
back the balance my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________