[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.

                          ____________________