[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 142 (Friday, October 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6527-H6532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE RELATING TO CROP INSURANCE
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
380, I call up the resolution (H. Res 379) expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives regarding certain provisions of the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to crop insurance, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 379
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the managers on the part of the House of
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 and other programs of the Department of
Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes)
should--
(1) agree to provisions relating to a limitation on premium
subsidy based on average adjusted gross income in excess of
$750,000;
(2) agree to provisions relating to a requirement for the
Secretary to carry out a study on crop insurance and the
impacts of an adjusted gross income limitation, as specified
in paragraph (1); and
(3) not agree to provisions relating to a delayed effective
date.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Resolution 379.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for his work on
passing a farm bill through the House. It was not an easy task.
And the farm bill got a lot right, in my judgment. It eliminated
direct payments. It made reforms to the food stamp program, which are
in desperate need of reform. It consolidated duplicative programs, and
the Agriculture Committee has started to implement very needed reforms
of these programs. Unfortunately, I don't think it went far enough,
which is why I am offering this sense of the House.
I think that we should accept what the Senate did--and they did it in
a bipartisan fashion--to impose limits on premium subsidies going
toward the wealthiest of farmers.
What this sense of the House does is it simply says, let's agree to
the Coburn-Durbin amendment which said, for those making above
$750,000, the sense of the Congress is that their premiums for crop
insurance should not be as generous as everybody else's. In fact, their
premiums should be subsidized by 15 percentage points. This is hardly
draconian. In fact, I would support going much farther than this, as I
have voted consistently in the past.
But what this says is, if you are a farmer and you make more than
$750,000, all you will get is a crop insurance subsidy that is not as
generous as everybody else's. It will be 15 percentage points less.
Let me give you an example. If you have protection for 50 percent of
your yield, right now the Federal Government will subsidize 67 percent
of that. Under this, if you make over $750,000, you would be subsidized
by 52 percent of your crop insurance. Hardly draconian.
So what we are simply saying is, we had a vote that was 59-33 in the
Senate to limit the subsidy for crop insurance for very wealthy
farmers. That is 1 percent of all of our agricultural producers in the
country, and what we should do is concede to that. We should agree with
that in conference, and that is what the sense of this House resolution
encourages.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
First, I would note, again, to my colleagues that this is one of the
final stages of this long, challenging process of putting a
comprehensive farm bill together.
With the conclusion of this debate on this sense of the Congress
resolution and the votes that I suspect will come sometime later today
or tomorrow, we will begin then with the appointment of conferees, the
formal process of working out the differences between House and Senate
bills. That is no small accomplishment, considering how many years
Ranking Member Peterson and I and the members of the House Agriculture
Committee have put into this effort. As a matter of fact, when we
started the process of gathering information and putting the hearing
record together, I was the ranking member, and Mr. Peterson was the
chairman. So this has been a long, long process.
Now, I must say that I am obligated to rise in opposition to the
resolution. I think the world of the author of this amendment, and in
his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, not only is he
well-intentioned in this amendment and his many other efforts, but
let's be honest, our friend has a tremendous amount of work on his
plate, addressing everything from the issues about how we work our way
out of this debt ceiling matter, how we address funding the Federal
Government, how we finally put a budget resolution together. I know he
is a busy, busy man; but I must say the committee focused very hard for
literally years on all of these issues.
I won't pretend that with all of the things going on right now, not
that many weeks after some very intense debate on the floor of this
House, the goodly number of our Members are not focused on particular
nuances of the farm bill, but on everything else going on.
But I would remind my good friends, the perspective of the House Ag
Committee and the perspective of the majority--yes, maybe I have had
too much fun with farm bills in recent years--of this process has led
us to believe that it was important that we encourage participation in
crop insurance. Crop insurance is like other insurance. It is about
creating a pool of risk and spreading it out as far as you possibly
can, having as many participants as you possibly can to share
adversity, to contribute more premiums into that pool so that when you
have that inevitable loss somewhere, you are better able to address it.
And that is the perspective the committee took and I believe the House,
as a whole, took. Get as many people involved in
[[Page H6528]]
utilizing and expanding the insurance pool as is possible.
Now, this sense of the Congress language is, in many ways, similar to
the Senate language and would restrict the number of people based on
AGI that would be able to participate, taking people out of the pool,
shrinking the pool. These are, in all fairness, some of the most
efficient farmers.
I will just simply ask my colleagues, remember the work of the
committee and the work of this body. Help us keep this program as
viable as possible.
{time} 1745
Help us make sure that all farmers have the tools to mitigate their
risk.
Now, there is one other perspective here, and we have talked about
this many times, and it is the perspective of, what is the farm bill
about? Is it about raising food and fiber? Is it about meeting the
nutritional needs of our citizens in this country and having our
surplus available to consumers around the rest of the world?
Or is it about deciding who a farmer should be, and using policy
decisions within the farm bill to pick people who we want to farm, and
to deny resources to people we don't happen to like who want to farm
also?
I reject that also. Farm bills are about farming, raising food and
fiber, meeting the needs.
I would ask again, very respectfully, of my colleagues, honor the
decisions of the full House not all that long ago. Reject this sense of
the House resolution.
Remember that you are helping us build on something that is kind of
amazing in this session of Congress, a bill that came out of committee
with $40 billion in mandatory spending reform, with a bipartisan vote,
a bill that left the United States House with a total of $60 billion in
mandatory spending reforms.
I can think of no other committee in this session of Congress that
can lay claim to that--$60 billion in mandatory reform.
Let us go to conference. Let us have as much flexibility as possible.
Let us finish our work. Let us finish our good work, and we will bring
a product back to you from conference that you can judge on its merits.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ryan
for his leadership on this issue and so many others and for allowing me
to join him on this resolution.
Madam Speaker, under our current system, every farmer buying crop
insurance gets a subsidy. The question is, How big should that subsidy
be? Should all farmers receive a 62 percent crop insurance subsidy or
more? Or should 1 percent of the most successful folks in agriculture
receive a 47 or a 48 percent subsidy, which is exactly what this
resolution would do?
While I support many of the reforms found in the House versions of
our farm bill, unfortunately, no provision has been included which
would limit crop insurance subsidies, and this resolution rectifies
that glaring oversight.
This commonsense resolution will save the taxpayers nearly $1 billion
by instructing conferees to implement an economic test for those
farmers with adjusted gross incomes over $750,000. Those with incomes
which exceed $750,000 will see their crop insurance premium subsidy
reduced by 15 percentage points.
We all understand and recognize the need for having a safety net in
place for our Nation's farmers. This resolution does nothing, nothing,
to undermine that safety net.
We all know the need for serious reforms also to our crop insurance
programs. Last year, it cost more than $14 billion, and without
reforms, it is projected to be more than twice as expensive as the
conventional commodity subsidy programs over the next decade.
So agreeing to this resolution would put into place the same
provisions put forward as were mentioned in the Coburn-Durbin amendment
in the Senate. That passed the Senate with significant bipartisan
support earlier this past summer.
Currently, Madam Speaker, 4 percent of farmers receive 33 percent of
the benefits of crop insurance. A stunning 73 percent of subsidy
dollars goes to the top 20 percent of agribusinesses. That just doesn't
make sense.
In a time of fiscal challenge, programs like crop insurance need
serious modifications, and this is a step in the right direction.
Though an incremental step, and a small one at that, it is, indeed, a
step in the right direction.
Also, at a time when there is little bipartisan agreement in this
town, this is just such an opportunity to enhance bipartisan
cooperation.
Now, most folks on our side of the aisle, this side of the aisle,
have been strongly supportive of an economic test for most taxpayer-
subsidized programs. More actions like this are necessary in order to
avoid this Nation's fiscal ruin.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of our primary subcommittee on the
House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the chairman for allowing us time to talk.
Madam Speaker, it is a bit surreal on a couple of levels, one, to be
speaking from this side of the Chamber, and two, to be speaking against
two of my colleagues who it is rare in my term here in Congress that I
have been on a different side of an issue from--my good colleagues from
Georgia and from Wisconsin. But on this one I stand in strong
opposition to the Ryan-Price amendment.
I just wanted to say how weird this feels to talk against something
that my good colleagues from Wisconsin and Georgia are proposing to do.
One point that was just made was that there was a $14 billion payout
last year in disaster insurance losses to farmers in America. That's a
cherry-picked year. Folks, remember, 2012 was historic droughts
throughout most of ag production America, and so, consequently, last
year was a much higher year than would have normally been the case. It
is normally about $4 billion a year in that regard.
I would also remind our colleagues that we fought this fight in July.
Just like the Senate went one direction with the vote, we went the
other direction, with a 208-217 vote on this floor. So we have had
these conversations already and won this argument already.
This effort will punish success, will punish efficiency. It is hard
to farm using $300,000 tractors if you have got a small farm. It takes
3,000 acres to be able to support the implements and the tools needed
to farm as efficiently as American farmers produce. And so we are
punishing the folks who are the best at what they do.
Also, Madam Speaker, I would argue that this is a risk tool. This is
not an income support tool. Income support tools, as some of our
approps have gone, clearly means-testing those makes sense. We have had
those in place for quite some time. But this is a risk management.
Risks at big farms are no different than risks on small farms, and to
limit crop insurance, to restrict crop insurance this way is, in my
view, wrongheaded.
I would also argue that using AGI at this stage in the development of
the broader issues going on in this country creates several unknowns.
Both my colleagues from Wisconsin and Georgia are working very
diligently on the Ways and Means Committee to, in effect, have a
fundamental tax reform. That fundamental tax reform will have the
impact of eliminating deductions and credits and, in effect, raising
AGI. They can't tell us today where that AGI number is going to go to,
so that creates one of the additional unknowns.
A second unknown is in their bill itself. Their resolution says they
don't know what the impact is going to be. We heard the Budget
Committee chairman say one percentage. We heard Mr. Price say a
different percentage. So even on their side of their arguments, they
are not clear yet on what the impact will be for folks who go above the
$750,000 AGI.
But their amendment itself, or their resolution says, in paragraph 2,
agree with the provisions relating to the requirement for the Secretary
to carry out a study on crop insurance and the impacts of an adjusted
gross income limitation that this is going to impose.
[[Page H6529]]
All of my colleagues who will speak in favor of this are generally
much more rational and logical about how they want to do things.
Creating this new test would be like the fellow who dove into some
unknown waters. As his feet left the bank he's saying, Wow, I wonder
how deep it is going to be, and I wonder how cold it is going to be.
We don't know, they don't know exactly what impact this is going to
have. So I would argue that, until we can fix a number on the AGI--and
again, let me make sure that everybody understands. I am not saying
anything whatsoever in opposition to the fundamental tax reform work
that is going on. That has nothing to do with my comments.
They are going to change the number that they want to use. That, they
cannot argue against. They cannot tell us yet where that is going to
be. They are going to raise it, I know, because you can't lower and
limit deductions and not raise folks' AGIs because business deductions
will be involved in this. So they can't tell us where that is going to
be for normal farmers.
So you can't look at a farmer today who might be making $500,000
AGI--lowering the rates the way they are going to do may raise that
farmer's AGI to something in excess of 750.
That person is in the exact economic circumstances they are now with
respect to crop insurance and the risk management tool that that has
provided, and yet they are going to be fundamentally impacted by this.
So I think this is ahead of its time. Wait on the study that the
Senate bill calls for. I suspect my chairman will agree on that study
that is going on.
But do not put this economic limit on crop insurance at this point in
time. We have won this fight once with our colleagues. I would expect
us to win it again. And I would urge my colleagues to vote against the
Ryan-Price amendment that would have the impact they don't know yet on
crop insurance.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from
Wisconsin, and I am pleased to join with him on the floor this evening
debating this issue. It is something we have done over the years,
working with Mr. Kind, with now Senator Flake, trying to inject a
little more rationality and fiscal responsibility into this debate.
Madam Speaker, it is true that the House rejected a proposal during
the debate on the farm bill, but 208 of our colleagues voted for a much
more ambitious proposal. In fact, I believe that there were more votes
for that crop insurance reform than were available for the first
iteration of the farm bill itself.
This is a very modest step, and I appreciate it being brought
forward, not because I think it is where we need to go ultimately, but
I think that this is the sort of thing we ought to be doing on the
floor of the House because there are, in fact, areas of agreement to do
a better job for the taxpayer, do a better job for more farmers and
ranchers, protect the environment. The farm bill is replete with these
opportunities.
I find the rhetoric about somehow picking winners and losers and
shutting down the richest farmers ironic. The proposal that is offered
by my friend, Mr. Ryan, does not deny the richest 1 percent of the
farmers crop insurance. It just says, your subsidy is going to be about
50 percent. You have a 15 percent reduction.
That's not picking winners and losers. That's not denying them the
use of this tool. But what we should be doing is actually doing a
deeper dive.
Crop insurance right now is so lucrative that it, in many instances,
actually pays farmers to plant ground that they know is going to fail.
They can make money off of it because of how lavishly the crop
insurance program is subsidized.
The premiums, the people who sell it, insure it against loss--I mean,
study after study from independent, outside agencies suggests that
there is a lot that we could do.
In fact, it is ironic that there has been this attack on food stamps,
the SNAP benefit, which has a lower percentage of abuse than the crop
insurance program. We are on board now, the next 10 years, to have crop
insurance likely to be pushing up against $100 billion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. But the fact is that this is an expensive entitlement
in need of reform, with more areas of identified abuse than the food
stamp program, which gets whacked, and we have a farm bill that is
going to provide more lavish benefits for the wealthiest farmers.
I appreciate this discussion this evening. I hope it is the beginning
of a more ambitious effort to do what needs to be done with crop
insurance. But I think it is healthy to have it here.
I am pleased to join with my friend, Mr. Ryan, to agree with
everything Tom Price said. Now that hasn't happened, I think, in any
speech that he has given on the floor to this point. I am sure I am
making him nervous agreeing with him.
But it illustrates the opportunity that we could have if we would
take the time to work together on areas where there is bipartisan
agreement and there is a clear need.
I appreciate the gentleman giving me the time. I appreciate him
bringing it forward, and I urge support.
{time} 1800
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 19 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding the time and for his
long-suffering and persistent leadership on this important issue.
I rise to ask my colleagues to please oppose efforts in this House to
punish success and vote ``no'' on the Ryan resolution.
The viability of any insurance instrument requires broad
participation. To maintain and foster improvement to our farm base and
the stable food supply it provides, proper risk mitigation is
essential. Although attacking the ``wealthy'' may appear to be noble,
AGI limits for crop insurance will drive out large-risk pool
participants, making the program less affordable for the farmers least
able to do without it.
In North Dakota, the average farm is markedly different than the farm
in Wisconsin. North Dakota family farms are thousands of acres
involving multiple generations. The proposed AGI limits ignore this
reality. They not only include income from farm operations, but other
wholly unrelated earnings. USDA research shows average off-farm income
greatly exceeds on-farm income, making the targets of this provision
more collateral than intentional.
American farmers largely support the major policy shift that
eliminates direct payments, relying solely on this cost-sharing
arrangement with the Federal Government, resulting in 10 percent
taxpayer savings. Unlike previous subsidies, farmers pay for this
protection by contributing around 40 percent of the premium. The other
60 percent is not even expended by the government unless a claim is
made.
The increasing role of Federal crop insurance as the foundation of
the family farm safety net in recent years has diminished the need for
crisis appropriations. Absent the stability of an actuarially sound
program, future catastrophic disasters will result in greater ad hoc
disaster payments. Let's not lose the momentum to shift from direct
payments to crop insurance by compromising the financial soundness of
this important program.
As the world population grows, the demand for food will increase. We
should herald efficiency and increased productivity. Neither is
achieved by punishing our most successful farmers.
Please oppose the Ryan sense of the House resolution.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank Chairman Ryan for putting this resolution
together. I also want to take time to recognize and thank Chairman
Lucas. In his tone and tenacity in putting together a farm bill, I
think he has served as an example in this House of how to be a chairman
and bring together divergent groups. I was very
[[Page H6530]]
supportive of what we have done, but I am also very supportive of this
resolution here today.
Implementing a 15-percentage point reduction in crop insurance for
producers with an adjusted gross income exceeding $750,000, or $1.5
million for joint filers, just like the Senate amendment, seems to be
common sense, in my mind. However, this resolution calls for the
elimination of delayed implementation in the Senate amendment. The
Senate amendment delays this. We are simply getting rid of the delay of
this implementation. This means test proposal would save roughly $1
billion over 10 years, something I think is very worthy for this body
to consider.
On average, taxpayers are covering about 62 percent of crop insurance
premiums. This proposal would reduce that to be about 47 percent,
roughly, for high-income producers. It is still a very generous deal
for very profitable producers. We encourage profitability. We want them
to be as prosperous as they possibly can be. That does not mean that we
have an unlimited amount of money that we can continue, as taxpayers,
to cover some of those risks.
This reduction impacts roughly the top 1 percent of producers. There
are other government assistance programs, such as Pell Grants and food
stamps and earned income tax credits, that have some sort of means test
to them. The least we can do is implement a modest means test for crop
insurance subsidies for those making more than $750,000 or, again, $1.5
million for joint filers.
To be clear, nobody is kicked out of this program. Nobody is
eliminated from this program. Contrary to the opponents' claim, this
will not harm the insurance poll by driving out low-risk producers.
Even with a 15-percent point reduction, the subsidy would still be huge
and would be a good deal for high-income producers, since about half of
the premium would still be subsidized.
I encourage passage.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the good gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the chairman. I want to also commend him for
his hard work on the farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, I know this has been a long and drawn-out process.
Obviously, there are a lot of changes in agriculture, and also with the
food stamp policy and with the economy. I know that this has been very
difficult.
But I do want to rise in opposition to this sense of the House. As a
farmer from Indiana who uses the crop insurance program, I understand a
little bit about how this does affect farmers.
First of all, I would say that I think it is the right thing for us
to do to eliminate the direct payment program. I think that is the
right policy. That is in the bill, and I would continue to support it.
I do think that we have some work to do on the crop insurance program,
but this is not the answer. If we are trying to limit or put a means
test on those whom you would define as the wealthiest farmers in the
country, I don't believe this is the correct way to do it.
Look at agriculture across the country. You have corn farmers in the
Midwest, soybean farmers in the Midwest. You have specialty crops,
whether it is green beans, strawberries, carrots, or potatoes. All of
these have different variables in the amount of income that comes in
per acre. So whether it is 10 acres or whether it is 10,000 acres, I
believe that the risk is still great to American farmers and producers.
Let's also remember that the premium support is not a cash subsidy to
farmers. Farmers don't all of a sudden open the mailbox and get a check
in the mail, with premium support, which I think is an appropriate
system for our insurance programs that the Federal Government can
participate in; but I don't believe that using the AGI is the correct
way to measure whether farmers should be participating at certain
levels or not.
If we really wanted to means test, we would use taxable income, where
farmers would be reporting certain incomes. AGI can vary from crop to
crop, from farm to farm, and so taxable income would make much more
sense if we are going to talk about any sort of means testing.
Also, I believe that it undermines the important landlord-tenant
relationship. I have specifically been involved in this. Whether it
comes to direct payments, obviously, with the increased cost of
farmland over the past several years, those relationships are very,
very important and very valuable.
Almost half of the farmland in this country is rented. I know that on
our farm we rent almost three-quarters of the land that we farm. If
land owners can no longer afford crop insurance, they can simply
transfer that risk to tenants through cash leases. You end up hurting
the smaller farmers that rely on rented farmland.
So I don't believe that this particular idea is ready for us to move
forward on. I think that it needs more work. I think that the
intentions by the author are sincere in trying to lessen the burden on
the American taxpayer; but, at the same time, let's not hurt the
American farmer and create, basically, a system that can treat a farmer
in the South differently than a farmer in the Midwest or a farmer in
the North.
Let's go back and reevaluate the system. I think that if you talk to
the farming industry, you talk to farmers, they will come to the table
and will try to find a reasonable way.
At this time, I would oppose this sense of the House.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Ryan sense of the House
resolution which would improve the 2013 farm bill by reducing insurance
subsidies for the wealthiest producers, saving taxpayers almost $1
billion.
The Senate bill includes a provision authorized by Senator Richard
Durbin and Tom Coburn to reduce the level of crop insurance premium
subsidies for participants with an adjusted gross income over $750,000
by 15 percent. The amendment was approved in the Senate on a bipartisan
basis, 59-33. During the House consideration of the farm bill, I
offered a companion amendment which was, unfortunately, not made in
order.
By supporting this sense of the House, our Chamber now has an
opportunity to go on record to support this modest, very commonsense
reform. The limitation is expected to impact only 1 percent of the
wealthiest farmers in the entire country. The vast majority of farmers
in our district will see no change in the level of premium provided by
the Federal Government.
Last year, the Federal Government spent $7 billion to cover 62
percent of crop insurance premiums. A 2012 GAO study found that 4
percent of the most profitable farmers accounted for nearly one-third
of all Federal premium support. Now is the time to include modest means
testing to reforms in crop insurance programs.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Ryan
sense of the House to protect taxpayers in the new farm bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maine
(Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be on the floor on this bipartisan
issue, which we certainly don't have enough of today, and I am happy to
be here as well with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, whom I
have had the privilege to work with, even though we possibly don't
agree on this issue.
I, too, was pleased to offer a similar amendment during the farm bill
process and was glad to see Mr. Hanna speak on that earlier. That
amendment was actually called the Hanna-Pingree amendment. I digress
for a minute because I was particularly sentimental about that
amendment since my daughter is named Hannah Pingree. Unfortunately,
that amendment met its demise. I am just pleased to see we are back
here discussing this topic.
The sense of Congress is a very small step toward a basic,
commonsense reform: modestly reducing premium payments for the most
successful farm businesses in America. Don't let anyone tell you
otherwise--99 percent of crop insurance holders will see absolutely no
change in their premium payments; but for a very few, the absolute
richest, they will see a very small increase in their premiums. We are
just
[[Page H6531]]
asking those few to pay something a little closer to their fair share.
To put this in perspective, crop insurance is the only farm income
support program that is not subject to some form of payment limitation
or means testing. Honestly, I would like to see a much stronger crop
insurance reform; but for now, for this farm bill, for today, this is a
step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
commonsense reform.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This debate is coming to a conclusion. I appreciate that greatly. The
civil tone, the nature of the discussion, is something that we should
do more of in this body; but I would note a couple of quick thoughts to
my colleagues.
There have been many references made to the historic crop insurance
payments made in the 2012 crop year. One of those amazing circumstances
was huge amounts of the Midwest, some of the most productive corn land
in America, simply didn't produce a crop--or not much of a crop. That
is no fault of the farmer involved. That is Mother Nature's decision
not to provide the right amount of moisture or, in other places, too
much moisture.
{time} 1815
But, you see, that is what crop insurance is all about. When I first
came here, we had a system that worked around--not crop insurance,
which didn't work very well and wasn't subscribed to by a lot of
people. We had a system of ad hoc disasters. If you had a problem here
or a problem there, then you would have a special appropriations bill
to fund that disaster. Those special bills tended to grow and expand;
and over time, they became a huge drain on the Treasury.
That is why, starting aggressively in the '96 farm bill--pushed even
harder by then-Chairman Peterson in the 2008 farm bill--the focus
became: no more ad hoc disasters bills. Have a crop insurance program
that works. Make it clear to producers that, if you have a problem, you
have to have insurance, that you have to participate, that you have to
pay the premiums.
Now, over the course of approximately the last decade, setting the
2012 year aside, this has become an amazingly orderly system. Many
Members in this room don't remember ad hoc agricultural disaster bills
because this has worked that well. I would challenge you in most--in
more than in the majority of the years--that the resources coming into
the program have been greater than the payments going out, but that is
the way insurance is supposed to work--you pay in in good years, and
you hope you never use the product; but in bad years, the assistance is
there. Call it crop insurance. Call it life insurance. Call it fire
insurance on your house. It is the principle behind the concept.
Now, the specific language we address here.
There has been much discussion about the draft that the United States
Senate has adopted in its farm bill. It is the same 750 number, and he
does include a study; but one of the main differences between what we
are addressing today and what the Senate has in its language in going
to conference is that the study, in effect, requires the USDA look at
the effect of this limitation on the participation in the program and
determine if that affects the viability of the program. Does it change
the dynamics? Does it suddenly become a greater expense as you shrink
the pool? It gives the Secretary the authority, if that study
determines that this will be negative to crop insurance, to suspend the
provision. That is not in this sense of Congress. It says, ``You
shall.'' ``You will.''
One other passing thought: there has been a lot of discussion about
reducing the numbers, the percentages, from 65 to 50. I will just
simply note to you that in many cases that, in effect, is not just a 15
percent move; that is a 40 percent move. Think about that. If you are a
farmer--who is a businessperson--assessing the cost of your inputs and
trying to match that up with a potential return on your outputs, you
are going to make those hard business decisions.
Again, I think the world of my colleague, the chairman of the Budget
Committee. I know he has a lot of things on his plate, and I know he
has had a great many challenges in his tenure as chairman of the House
Budget Committee; but I will tell you that I think the Ag Committee has
worked very diligently to craft language that we are now about to send
to conference in order to work out the ultimate bill that reflects a
lot of open process--in committee, on the floor, in a lot of input with
motions to instruct today, and in another sense of the House
resolution. We have acknowledged and responded to that input.
You have battled as Members of this body--and debated and discussed
and voted--on all of these issues before. I would just ask my
colleagues to remember what this body decided not all that long ago and
that, also, as we go to conference with the Senate, it is going to be a
very difficult thing to protect our $60 billion in mandatory spending
reform that you have directed us to do. Give the committee, give me,
give the ranking member as many tools and as much flexibility as you
can so that we may prevail from the House's point of view in
accomplishing common policy with the Senate that meets not only the
goals of this Chamber, but the needs of this country.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee for a very civil debate. He and I have talked about so many
of these issues. We have worked so well together, and he has done the
yeoman's work on moving these bills to the floor. On this particular
issue, we don't agree. He may not think that I am helping, but I think
I am helping by passing this. The reason is that this passed 59-33 in
the Senate. If we pass it here, that just takes off the table one
contentious issue that they don't have to negotiate in conference,
making it easier to focus on the other things that you have yet to
reconcile in conference. So we are actually trying to help the Ag
Committee out here. That is one way you can put it.
On a more serious note, I want to talk about a few of the criticisms.
Pooling. My friend from North Dakota mentioned that it is important
to have crop insurance with these people with very, very high adjusted
gross incomes in the pool to make the cash flow. That is an actuarial
argument that works with health insurance--healthy people subsidize
sick people--but that is really not an argument that, I think, flows
with this kind of insurance.
Point number two: no one is saying that a person who has a high net
worth, who has a high adjusted gross income can't get crop insurance.
All we are saying is just don't subsidize him as much as everybody
else. That is really not asking a lot. What we are saying is, if you
are a farmer and if you make $750,000 of adjusted gross income or
higher, you don't get subsidized by the taxpayer for your crop
insurance as much as everybody else. Your subsidy is 15 percentage
points lower than that of the people who make less than $750,000. You
still get crop insurance. You can still buy it. You will still get a
subsidy, just not as much as everybody else.
Look, if you buy insurance on 50 percent of your acres, instead of
the government paying for 67 percent of that insurance, it will pay for
52 percent of your insurance. If you buy insurance to cover 65 percent
of your acres, instead of the government paying 59 percent of the cost,
it would pay 44 percent of the cost. If you buy insurance on 85 percent
of your acres, instead of the government subsidizing 38 percent of the
cost of that coverage, it will subsidize 23 percent of the cost of that
coverage. So there is still a subsidy.
You are not penalizing or punishing success by not subsidizing people
as much. If we were having a tax debate--if we were talking about
raising taxes--then you are penalizing success. If we are talking about
taxing and taking money from producers--from successful people, from
businesses making any amount of money--then you are penalizing success.
What we are saying is just don't subsidize people as much because this
subsidy is taking money from hardworking taxpayers--from their taxes--
to give to somebody else. What we are saying is let's not take
[[Page H6532]]
money from hardworking taxpayers to give as much to farmers who are
making more than $750,000. We just don't want to subsidize them as
much. That is not punishing success.
The other point is that this is one of those rare moments in which I
think there is bipartisan agreement that a farm bill really ought to be
for family farmers. The purpose of the farm program is to make sure
that individual families can stay farming, and that means the safety
net needs to be there for that family farm. I know in Wisconsin most of
our farmers don't make $750,000, so it probably doesn't affect many of
the corn and bean or dairy farmers whom I represent. Maybe in North
Dakota and in other States there are people with thousands of acres who
make that kind of money. I think that is great--I think that is
wonderful--but I still think that our taxpayers shouldn't have to
subsidize them as much as the family farmer.
This is one of those opportunities in which I think Congress can
speak with a bipartisan voice. I really believe, if the Hanna-Pingree
amendment or the Blumenauer-Mulvaney amendment had been made in order,
it probably would have passed. So this is our chance here in the House
to speak with one voice on a bipartisan basis. Let's not subsidize
folks at the high end as much, and let's protect that family farmer.
Let's agree with the Senate and take this issue off the table as one of
those contentious issues because we are agreeing bipartisanly and
bicamerally that we ought to have a farm program for the family farmer
and somewhere limit these subsidies. That is all we are asking for.
With that, I ask for its passage, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mullin). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________