[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13207-13214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 752, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster 
assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such 
assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6233

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Disaster 
     Assistance Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible producer on a farm.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible producer on a farm'' 
     means an individual or entity described in subparagraph (B) 
     that, as determined by the Secretary, assumes the production 
     and market risks associated with the agricultural production 
     of crops or livestock.
       (B) Description.--An individual or entity referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is--
       (i) a citizen of the United States;
       (ii) a resident alien;
       (iii) a partnership of citizens of the United States; or
       (iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other 
     farm organizational structure organized under State law.
       (2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised fish'' means 
     any aquatic species that is propagated and reared in a 
     controlled environment.
       (3) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' includes--
       (A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
       (B) bison;
       (C) poultry;
       (D) sheep;
       (E) swine;
       (F) horses; and
       (G) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
       (1) Payments.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall 
     use such sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to make livestock indemnity payments to 
     eligible producers on farms that have incurred livestock 
     death losses in excess of the normal mortality, as determined 
     by the Secretary, due to--
       (A) attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the 
     Federal Government or protected by Federal law, including 
     wolves and avian predators; or
       (B) adverse weather, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the calendar year, including losses due to hurricanes, 
     floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires, extreme heat, and 
     extreme cold.
       (2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to an eligible 
     producer on a farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a 
     rate of 75 percent of the market value of the applicable 
     livestock on the day before the date of death of the 
     livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Special rule for payments made due to disease.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that payments made to an eligible 
     producer under paragraph (1) are not made for the same 
     livestock losses for which compensation is provided pursuant 
     to section 10407(d) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 8306(d)).
       (c) Livestock Forage Disaster Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Covered livestock.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     term ``covered livestock'' means livestock of an eligible 
     livestock producer that, during the 60 days prior to the 
     beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire condition, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the eligible livestock 
     producer--

       (I) owned;
       (II) leased;
       (III) purchased;
       (IV) entered into a contract to purchase;
       (V) is a contract grower; or
       (VI) sold or otherwise disposed of due to qualifying 
     drought conditions during--

       (aa) the current production year; or
       (bb) subject to paragraph (3)(B)(ii), 1 or both of the 2 
     production years immediately preceding the current production 
     year.
       (ii) Exclusion.--The term ``covered livestock'' does not 
     include livestock that were or would have been in a feedlot, 
     on the beginning date of the qualifying drought or fire 
     condition, as a part of the normal business operation of the 
     eligible livestock producer, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Drought monitor.--The term ``drought monitor'' means a 
     system for classifying drought severity according to a range 
     of abnormally dry to exceptional drought, as defined by the 
     Secretary.
       (C) Eligible livestock producer.--
       (i) In general.--The term ``eligible livestock producer'' 
     means an eligible producer on a farm that--

       (I) is an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract grower 
     of covered livestock that provides the pastureland or grazing 
     land, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land, for 
     the livestock;
       (II) provides the pastureland or grazing land for covered 
     livestock, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land 
     that is physically located in a county affected by drought;
       (III) certifies grazing loss; and
       (IV) meets all other eligibility requirements established 
     under this subsection.

       (ii) Exclusion.--The term ``eligible livestock producer'' 
     does not include an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract 
     grower of livestock that rents or leases pastureland or 
     grazing land owned by another person on a rate-of-gain basis.
       (D) Normal carrying capacity.--The term ``normal carrying 
     capacity'', with respect to each type of grazing land or 
     pastureland in a county, means the normal carrying capacity, 
     as determined under paragraph (3)(D)(i), that would be 
     expected from the grazing land or pastureland for livestock 
     during the normal grazing period, in the absence of a drought 
     or fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or 
     pastureland.
       (E) Normal grazing period.--The term ``normal grazing 
     period'', with respect to a county, means the normal grazing 
     period during the calendar year for the county, as determined 
     under paragraph (3)(D)(i).
       (2) Program.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall use 
     such sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide compensation for losses to 
     eligible livestock producers due to grazing losses for 
     covered livestock due to--
       (A) a drought condition, as described in paragraph (3); or
       (B) fire, as described in paragraph (4).
       (3) Assistance for losses due to drought conditions.--
       (A) Eligible losses.--
       (i) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive 
     assistance under this subsection only for grazing losses for 
     covered livestock that occur on land that--

       (I) is native or improved pastureland with permanent 
     vegetative cover; or
       (II) is planted to a crop planted specifically for the 
     purpose of providing grazing for covered livestock.

       (ii) Exclusions.--An eligible livestock producer may not 
     receive assistance under this subsection for grazing losses 
     that occur on land used for haying or grazing under the 
     conservation reserve program established under subchapter B 
     of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.).
       (B) Monthly payment rate.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     payment rate for assistance under this paragraph for 1 month 
     shall, in the case of drought, be equal to 60 percent of the 
     lesser of--

       (I) the monthly feed cost for all covered livestock owned 
     or leased by the eligible livestock producer, as determined 
     under subparagraph (C); or
       (II) the monthly feed cost calculated by using the normal 
     carrying capacity of the eligible grazing land of the 
     eligible livestock producer.

       (ii) Partial compensation.--In the case of an eligible 
     livestock producer that sold or otherwise disposed of covered 
     livestock due to drought conditions in 1 or both of the 2 
     production years immediately preceding the current production 
     year, as determined by the Secretary, the payment rate shall 
     be 80 percent of the payment rate otherwise calculated in 
     accordance with clause (i).
       (C) Monthly feed cost.--
       (i) In general.--The monthly feed cost shall equal the 
     product obtained by multiplying--

       (I) 30 days;

[[Page 13208]]

       (II) a payment quantity that is equal to the feed grain 
     equivalent, as determined under clause (ii); and
       (III) a payment rate that is equal to the corn price per 
     pound, as determined under clause (iii).

       (ii) Feed grain equivalent.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)(II), the feed grain equivalent shall equal--

       (I) in the case of an adult beef cow, 15.7 pounds of corn 
     per day; or
       (II) in the case of any other type of weight of livestock, 
     an amount determined by the Secretary that represents the 
     average number of pounds of corn per day necessary to feed 
     the livestock.

       (iii) Corn price per pound.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)(III), the corn price per pound shall equal the quotient 
     obtained by dividing--

       (I) the higher of--

       (aa) the national average corn price per bushel for the 12-
     month period immediately preceding March 1 of the year for 
     which the disaster assistance is calculated; or
       (bb) the national average corn price per bushel for the 24-
     month period immediately preceding that March 1; by

       (II) 56.

       (D) Normal grazing period and drought monitor intensity.--
       (i) FSA county committee determinations.--

       (I) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the normal 
     carrying capacity and normal grazing period for each type of 
     grazing land or pastureland in the county served by the 
     applicable committee.
       (II) Changes.--No change to the normal carrying capacity or 
     normal grazing period established for a county under 
     subclause (I) shall be made unless the change is requested by 
     the appropriate State and county Farm Service Agency 
     committees.

       (ii) Drought intensity.--

       (I) D2.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or leases 
     grazing land or pastureland that is physically located in a 
     county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as having a 
     D2 (severe drought) intensity in any area of the county for 
     at least 8 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period 
     for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be 
     eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an 
     amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment 
     rate determined under subparagraph (B).
       (II) D3.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or 
     leases grazing land or pastureland that is physically located 
     in a county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as 
     having at least a D3 (extreme drought) intensity in any area 
     of the county at any time during the normal grazing period 
     for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be 
     eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph--

       (aa) in an amount equal to 2 monthly payments using the 
     monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or
       (bb) if the county is rated as having a D3 (extreme 
     drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4 
     weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, or is 
     rated as having a D4 (exceptional drought) intensity in any 
     area of the county at any time during the normal grazing 
     period, in an amount equal to 3 monthly payments using the 
     monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B).
       (4) Assistance for losses due to fire on public managed 
     land.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive 
     assistance under this paragraph only if--
       (i) the grazing losses occur on rangeland that is managed 
     by a Federal agency; and
       (ii) the eligible livestock producer is prohibited by the 
     Federal agency from grazing the normal permitted livestock on 
     the managed rangeland due to a fire.
       (B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for assistance under 
     this paragraph shall be equal to 50 percent of the monthly 
     feed cost for the total number of livestock covered by the 
     Federal lease of the eligible livestock producer, as 
     determined under paragraph (3)(C).
       (C) Payment duration.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible 
     livestock producer shall be eligible to receive assistance 
     under this paragraph for the period--

       (I) beginning on the date on which the Federal agency 
     excludes the eligible livestock producer from using the 
     managed rangeland for grazing; and
       (II) ending on the last day of the Federal lease of the 
     eligible livestock producer.

       (ii) Limitation.--An eligible livestock producer may only 
     receive assistance under this paragraph for losses that occur 
     on not more than 180 days per year.
       (5) No duplicative payments.--An eligible livestock 
     producer may elect to receive assistance for grazing or 
     pasture feed losses due to drought conditions under paragraph 
     (3) or fire under paragraph (4), but not both for the same 
     loss, as determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and 
     Farm-Raised Fish.--
       (1) In general.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall 
     use not more than $20,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide emergency relief to eligible 
     producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to 
     aid in the reduction of losses due to disease (including 
     cattle tick fever), adverse weather, or other conditions, 
     such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the 
     Secretary, that are not covered under subsection (b) or (c).
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this 
     subsection shall be used to reduce losses caused by feed or 
     water shortages, disease, or other factors as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Availability of funds.--Any funds made available under 
     this subsection shall remain available until expended.
       (e) Tree Assistance Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Eligible orchardist.--The term ``eligible orchardist'' 
     means a person that produces annual crops from trees for 
     commercial purposes.
       (B) Natural disaster.--The term ``natural disaster'' means 
     plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze, 
     flood, earthquake, lightning, or other occurrence, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (C) Nursery tree grower.--The term ``nursery tree grower'' 
     means a person who produces nursery, ornamental, fruit, nut, 
     or Christmas trees for commercial sale, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (D) Tree.--The term ``tree'' includes a tree, bush, and 
     vine.
       (2) Eligibility.--
       (A) Loss.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for fiscal year 
     2012, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     assistance--
       (i) under paragraph (3) to eligible orchardists and nursery 
     tree growers that planted trees for commercial purposes but 
     lost the trees as a result of a natural disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       (ii) under paragraph (3)(B) to eligible orchardists and 
     nursery tree growers that have a production history for 
     commercial purposes on planted or existing trees but lost the 
     trees as a result of a natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist or nursery tree 
     grower shall qualify for assistance under subparagraph (A) 
     only if the tree mortality of the eligible orchardist or 
     nursery tree grower, as a result of damaging weather or 
     related condition, exceeds 15 percent (adjusted for normal 
     mortality).
       (3) Assistance.--Subject to paragraph (4), the assistance 
     provided by the Secretary to eligible orchardists and nursery 
     tree growers for losses described in paragraph (2) shall 
     consist of--
       (A)(i) reimbursement of 70 percent of the cost of 
     replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent 
     mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or
       (ii) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings 
     to reestablish a stand; and
       (B) reimbursement of 50 percent of the cost of pruning, 
     removal, and other costs incurred by an eligible orchardist 
     or nursery tree grower to salvage existing trees or, in the 
     case of tree mortality, to prepare the land to replant trees 
     as a result of damage or tree mortality due to a natural 
     disaster, as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 
     percent damage or mortality (adjusted for normal tree damage 
     and mortality).
       (4) Limitations on assistance.--
       (A) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this 
     paragraph, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have the 
     meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
       (B) Amount.--The total amount of payments received, 
     directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity 
     (excluding a joint venture or general partnership) under this 
     subsection may not exceed $100,000 for any crop year, or an 
     equivalent value in tree seedlings.
       (C) Acres.--The total quantity of acres planted to trees or 
     tree seedlings for which a person or legal entity shall be 
     entitled to receive payments under this subsection may not 
     exceed 500 acres.
       (f) Payment Limitations.--
       (1) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this 
     subsection, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
       (2) Amount.--The total amount of disaster assistance 
     payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or 
     legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general 
     partnership) under this section (excluding payments received 
     under subsection (e)) may not exceed $100,000 for any crop 
     year.
       (3) AGI limitation.--Section 1001D of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) or any successor provision shall 
     apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.
       (4) Direct attribution.--Subsections (e) and (f) of section 
     1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) or any 
     successor provisions relating to direct attribution shall 
     apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Application.--This section shall take effect as of 
     October 1, 2011, and apply to losses that are incurred as the 
     result of a disaster, adverse weather, or other environmental 
     condition that occurs on or before

[[Page 13209]]

     September 30, 2012, as determined by the Secretary.
       (h) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by 
     the Secretary under this section shall be final and 
     conclusive.
       (i) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this section.
       (2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this section shall be made without regard 
     to--
       (A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (B) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''); and
       (C) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking.
       (3) Congressional review of agency rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this subsection, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Conservation Stewardship Program.--Section 1238G(d)(1) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838g(d)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(except that for fiscal year 2013, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enroll in 
     the program an additional 11,000,000 acres)'' before the 
     semicolon.
       (b) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--Section 
     1241(a)(6) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) $1,750,000,000 in fiscal year 2012;
       ``(F) $1,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(G) $1,750,000,000 in fiscal year 2014.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 752, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Peterson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 6233, which provides disaster aid to 
livestock and other producers.
  I am sure all of my colleagues are keenly aware of what is happening 
all across this great country. A drought of epic proportions is 
gripping a large majority of the Nation, and it is endangering vast 
areas of agriculturally productive land. The map behind me illustrates 
just how widespread and how bad this drought really is. Just yesterday, 
in my home State of Oklahoma, we had temperatures topping out at 115 
degrees. Vast areas of productive pastureland are burning up, and our 
ranchers are in dire need.
  But also let's be very clear as to why we are here on the floor 
today. In 2008, Congress passed a farm bill that did not provide a 
final year of disaster assistance. I have heard people call this 
``extending disaster assistance by a year.'' No. What we are doing is 
fixing a problem. We are backfilling a hole--or fixing a deficiency.
  I'm not here to point fingers. I was elected to fix problems. We have 
a drought. We don't have a disaster program, and I am here to provide a 
solution. Now, in past years, we might just wave our hands and declare 
this to be emergency spending, but we tend not to do that anymore, 
thank goodness. This bill pays for itself. Not only does it pay for 
itself, but it gives more than $250 million to deficit reduction. To 
me, that sounds like fixing a problem.
  Amazingly, that's not the end of the story.
  Some people do not like how we paid for the bill. Quite frankly, I 
don't either. I was the subcommittee chairman for conservation programs 
in 2002 when we gave an extra $17 billion to conservation programs. I 
am a proponent of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs, but 
let me give you a little history on EQIP funding.
  Ten years ago, in fiscal year 2002, we authorized $200 million in 
EQIP spending. In fiscal year 2009, we authorized $1.34 billion, and 
for fiscal year 2013, we authorized $1.75 billion. Yes, we are cutting 
real dollars: $350 million will not go to our farmers and ranchers to 
help comply with the enormous regulations facing them. But, at the end 
of the day, this will still be the largest amount of money ever spent 
on the EQIP program, seven times what we spent in 2002.
  The other offset is the CSP program, which was vastly, I might note 
for the record, improved in 2008. For those of you here in 2008 who 
voted for the farm bill, the CSP program in the House bill had zero 
dollars when it left the House. In the just-passed Ag Committee farm 
bill, we limited CSP to 9 million acres. I greatly respect the 
conservation community, but to hear them say we are destroying 
conservation programs could not be farther from the truth.
  You will also hear people complain that this isn't the full farm 
bill. My priority remains to get a 5-year farm bill on the books and to 
put those policies into place.

                              {time}  1150

  But the most pressing business before us today is to provide disaster 
assistance to those producers impacted by drought conditions who are 
currently exposed. It is as simple as that. There is a problem out 
there. Let's fix it.
  Let me address the farm bill that my colleagues seem to either love 
or hate or love to hate or hate to love. The bill is not perfect. No 
legislation is. We can spend our time trying to chip away at the 
Federal deficit $1 million at a time, coming down to the floor on every 
appropriations bill, or we can spend our time writing opinion pieces 
for The Wall Street Journal, or we can do something about it. The farm 
bill that passed out of my committee, the Agriculture Committee, saves 
$35 billion. Let me repeat that: $35 billion.
  Tell me another piece of legislation that has bipartisan support and 
a chance to pass the United States Senate that saves that much money. 
My friends on my side of the aisle will say we don't cut enough while, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle will say we cut too much. 
This is the perfect case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. I believe in the legislative process. I believe in letting the 
House work its will. We did it in the House Agriculture Committee, and 
we can do it here, too.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say again: I am committed to giving certainty to 
our farmers. I plan to work towards the goal when we get back in 
September, but we are here today to fix a problem. Let's do it without 
partisan bickering. There's a disaster happening out there. Let's give 
the tools to our ranchers who are the most exposed. The bill is paid 
for. Let's do what the American people sent us here to do: fix 
problems. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 6233.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today is the last session before the August recess, and once again 
the House will adjourn without finishing its work. It's no wonder 
nobody likes Congress anymore. Members will now have to explain to 
their constituents why the House did not even try to consider a new 5-
year farm bill. Frankly, we're in this position because the House 
leadership has refused to bring the 5-year farm bill to the floor.
  Working in a bipartisan tradition on the Agriculture Committee, 
Chairman Lucas and I have crafted a new 5-year farm bill making many 
important and needed reforms. I appreciate the efforts of the chairman 
in trying to enact a long-term policy, and I know that if he had his 
way, as he just said, we would have already passed a farm bill. The 
chairman and I were ready to mark up our bill at the end of June, but 
the Republican leadership stepped in and said that they wanted us to 
consider the ag approps bill. So we held off for a couple of weeks, and 
then they didn't even bring the ag approps bill to the floor. The 
committee completed their work then on July 11, passing a new bill, a 
5-year bill, 35-11 in a bipartisan vote. But rather than bring this 
bill to the floor, the House instead focused on messaging bills that 
are going nowhere.
  I understand that this is an election year and the majority wants to 
promote their message, and I've even voted for some of these bills. You

[[Page 13210]]

would think that after delaying us for 2 weeks, the leadership could 
have found 2 days on the House calendar to consider the committee's 
farm bill before the August recess.
  Instead of bringing up the 5-year farm bill, the Republican 
leadership last week put forth a 1-year farm bill extension hoping to 
delay action until the next Congress, with hopes, for some people, that 
they're going to dismantle the farm and food safety nets. Fortunately, 
under intense opposition from those in agriculture and others, the 
leadership had to pull the bill. This brings us to today's 
consideration of H.R. 6233. This measure will provide some assistance 
to a few livestock producers affected by drought conditions across the 
country. Providing assistance to livestock producers, primarily cattle 
and sheep, is necessary and important, but this is not a comprehensive 
disaster package. Dairy and specialty crop producers are going to be 
left hurting, and there's no assistance for pork and poultry producers.
  The Ag Committee's farm bill not only includes the livestock 
provision we're considering today, it also strengthens the farm safety 
net on a wide-ranging list of commodities. The 5-year farm bill will do 
a better job of providing certainty for American agriculture and 
assistance during this period of drought.
  Additionally, I have concerns about the conservation cuts that are 
used to pay for this assistance. I don't think cutting conservation 
programs to offset the cost of disaster is the right approach. If there 
was more time, maybe we could find a better way to do this. But in the 
rush of putting this bill together, it didn't give us the necessary 
time to explore all of the options. This is yet another reason that I 
think bringing up a 5-year bill makes more sense.
  It's just mystifying to me why House leaders can't take ``yes'' for 
an answer. I don't know how many times I've heard from the other side 
complaints about the Senate not being able to get our bills passed. We 
passed a lot of bills, most of which I supported, that are over in the 
Senate and they never took them up. Now the Senate has passed a bill, 
and this may be the only time that we will ever be able to get a farm 
bill through the Senate. They passed it on a bipartisan basis. We 
passed it on a bipartisan basis. Now the leadership doesn't want to 
bring it up. I don't understand it.
  The farm economy is the one part of the economy that is actually 
working, doing well, has been solid for the last few years. This is due 
in part, I believe, to the strong farm bill that we passed in '08. 
Weathering a natural disaster without the certainty of a 5-year bill 
could jeopardize one of the bright spots we have in this economy.
  With all that said, I do recognize the effects the drought is having 
on our farmers, and I will vote in favor of H.R. 6233. However, this 
bill is a sad substitute for what is really needed--a long-term farm 
policy. So I'll continue to urge my colleagues to bring up the House 
agriculture 5-year farm bill and to ensure that all producers will have 
necessary assistance during these times of disaster.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 6233, the supplemental 
agriculture disaster assistance bill.
  As we look across the United States, many areas, including South 
Dakota, are facing a serious drought. While many of our producers are 
covered by crop insurance, our livestock producers don't have the same 
safety net in place to weather this drought. That's why the livestock 
disaster programs are so important.
  The last farm bill was in place for 5 years, while the livestock 
disaster programs were only put into place for 4. That's why back in 
April I introduced legislation that would reauthorize those programs 
and retroactively look at 2012, recognizing that it was a dereliction 
of our duty, and to make sure that there was a safety net for our 
livestock producers, as well. The 2008 farm bill did not extend that 
disaster coverage for this year, but today we have the chance to make 
that right.
  This House should not go home while literally hanging our ranchers 
out to dry without a safety net to get through this drought. This need 
is immediate, which is why we need to get this done. Beyond this, I'm 
going to continue to advocate for a 5-year farm bill, knowing it's the 
right thing to do, making sure that these programs are put into place 
for the lifetime of that farm bill so that we can avoid situations like 
this.
  The full 5-year farm bill is the best way to get a long-term safety 
net for our livestock producers, and for our commodity producers, as 
well. We can't wait another day with this drought going on without 
giving our ranchers some needed certainty. That's why I'm going to urge 
all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today, and to continue to work to 
get a 5-year farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa, one of our ranking members, Mr. 
Boswell.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of farmers and 
producers in Iowa and in my district and across the country. And I want 
to thank you, Chairman Lucas, and you, Ranking Member Peterson, for 
working together to try to resolve the need for the farm bill. As you 
know, we are suffering because of the drought that continues to beat 
down on our land and our livestock.
  While I'm not 100 percent pleased with this bill, I will vote today 
to move it forward on behalf of my producers in need. And for those who 
have been grappling for hay and have begun to liquidate cattle, I will 
support this disaster aid bill. However, I do it with a heavy heart, 
yet with the eternal optimist of a farmer, as you are, Mr. Chairman and 
Mr. Peterson.
  As a cow-calf producer myself, I can tell you exactly what our 
farmers and ranchers across America want. They want a farm bill, a 5-
year farm bill that will provide long-term certainty in a changing 
market with an uncontrollable climate.
  Producers in my State want a farm bill that invests in expansions and 
research for insurance programs, like the provisions we worked on in 
the House committee for livestock insurance and for specialty crops. 
They want to see a bill that will help them beyond 2012 and 2013, a 
bill that shows what we know: not only must we react to this drought, 
but we must prepare for the future.
  Since July 11, I have expressed my support for a farm bill every 
chance I have had. I hope for a conference the same way I hope for 
rain. However, the Republican leadership has taken every chance they 
get to block debate on the 5-year farm bill.
  It is clear this is not a perfect bill; but these happen to be 
imperfect times, and I believe we must respond to the drought that is 
impacting more than half of our Nation, as was depicted by the chairman 
a few moments ago.
  I have reservations regarding the cuts to conservation, particularly 
since conservation programs have been one option to help feed the 
cattle under our current drought. Furthermore, if we could bring the 
farm bill to the floor, we could respond to drought issues, we could 
debate issues that are critical to all Americans, and we could advance 
a bill that saves tens of billions of dollars.
  It is imperative that we pass a comprehensive, long-term farm bill. 
Farmers and ranchers always face decisions that carry very serious 
financial ramifications, such as planting a crop, buying land, 
upgrading machinery, building a herd. And we know that if we don't have 
a farm bill, that there are going to be a lot of ramifications on those 
out there that depend on the agriculture economy for a lot more than 
producing cattle or corn and beans or wheat or whatever. The machinery 
is a big part of it.
  Both the Senate and the House Agriculture Committees have produced 
reform-minded, bipartisan bills that address plenty of the core 
principles that

[[Page 13211]]

are important, such as strengthening crop insurance and ensuring strong 
agricultural research and development.
  We have heard time and again in this House how uncertainty in the 
marketplace hinders job creation and economic growth. Not passing a 
long-term farm bill is bringing uncertainty to family farmers across 
Iowa, across the Nation, and this uncertainty must end.
  We must pass a 5-year farm bill as soon as possible. Therefore, I 
remain hopeful--my eternal optimism, as I stated--that after providing 
relief to our producers impacted by this drought, that when we return 
from the August work period, that Speaker Boehner will welcome us back 
with a farm bill on the floor.
  I support this resolution.
  Mr. PETERSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), one of the most experienced and knowledgeable members of 
the Ag Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank Chairman Lucas for his leadership on this 
issue and Ranking Member Peterson for his support of this effort to 
take action to help livestock producers who are being devastated by the 
drought. Livestock farmers in the Sixth District of Virginia have been 
hit hard by the heat and the derecho that swept through the Shenandoah 
Valley last month.
  This disaster relief was included in the 2008 farm bill but, 
unfortunately, did not last the full length of the farm bill. I am 
pleased that the Congress has found a way to provide relief for these 
livestock farmers; and not only do we provide the relief, but we pay 
for it. And not only do we pay for it, but we also achieve additional 
savings that are applied to the deficit. If every bill passed by the 
Congress reduced spending overall, we would be in much better fiscal 
condition in the Federal Government.
  While the Congress is taking an important first step in providing 
relief for drought-stricken livestock farmers, the administration has 
at hand a tool that they should use right now to provide drought relief 
as well.
  The Obama administration has at its disposal an easy relief valve 
that would provide drought relief, if only temporarily--a reduction in 
the government-mandated Renewable Fuel Standard. I have long been a 
critic of the RFS that has increased food and feed stocks being 
diverted into fuel, leading to diminished supplies for livestock and 
food producers. In fact, last year, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop 
was used for ethanol production. There is no doubt that this policy has 
driven up the price of corn, which today is hovering around $8 a 
bushel. This, in turn, drives up the cost of food.
  Unfortunately, because of the drought, we no longer have the luxury 
of being just worried about the price. This drought is so devastating 
that we have to be increasingly worried we do not have a large enough 
corn supply to meet all of our competing demands.
  As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are 
real concerns about having enough to satisfy the RFS and the needs of 
our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are 
choosing between fuel and food. In fact, the government has chosen: 
they've chosen fuel over food with a policy that mandates a certain 
amount of corn production going to ethanol production each year.
  As the drought further shrinks the corn supply, we are unfortunately 
also going to see livestock herds shrink. This shrinking herd will 
affect consumers' grocery bills, resulting in consumers having to spend 
more in the grocery store. Rural communities that depend on livestock 
will be hit hard as producers affected by both the availability and 
high price of corn are being forced to limit their production or are 
being squeezed out of business.
  The law allows the Administrator of the EPA to reduce the required 
volume of renewable fuels in any year based on severe harm to the 
economy or environment of a state, a region or the United States, or in 
the event of inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. This drought 
and the shrinking corn crop are causing severe economic harm in the 
countryside and on grocery store shelves.
  The Administrator of the EPA has already received a petition to waive 
the RFS for a year. Today, over 150 bipartisan members, from coast to 
coast, joined in calling for Administrator Jackson to waive the RFS. 
The Congress is acting today to help drought stricken livestock 
farmers, but now the Obama Administration must act to use their 
authority to help these same farmers. This relief is not only 
desperately needed, but I believe is required by the law.
  I urge all members to join today in supporting this bill to help 
provide much needed drought relief, and I urge the Administration to 
join the Congress in acting to provide drought relief by waiving the 
RFS.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a first start 
toward addressing a longer-term problem that requires other action.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose this measure--
not because drought relief is not desperately needed in many parts of 
this country, but because we have a far better vehicle to do this in 
the form of the farm bill that Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member 
Peterson have worked so tirelessly to produce, a good, good 5-year farm 
policy on behalf of American agriculture.
  We need to do the job that we were sent here to do. The drought 
relief package that we are voting on today, I believe, is sadly more 
about giving the Republican leadership relief when they go back to 
their districts in August than helping our Nation's farmers, ranchers, 
and dairymen.
  There is no denying that action is needed to offer relief, and we 
must do that; and hopefully we'll come to an agreement in September. 
But the best action, I believe, is passing the bipartisan farm bill.
  If we were serious about helping agriculture make it through this 
drought, we would have brought up the bipartisan farm bill, which came 
out of the United States Senate, passed the House Agriculture Committee 
by a vote of
35-11, and followed regular order.
  The fact is that instead of working on a conference committee, as we 
should be doing at this time because we certainly have had enough time 
to do that, we are voting on a patchwork measure that, in my opinion, 
is more about politics than policy and, more likely than not, will go 
nowhere in the United States Senate.
  The dairymen, poultry producers, and cattle feeders in my district 
have seen their feed prices skyrocket 30 to 35 percent in the last 6 to 
8 weeks. And, yes, we ought to provide relief through the Renewable 
Fuel Standard.
  Bankruptcies are increasing at an alarming rate among the dairy 
industry in California. When these businesses are already struggling to 
stay afloat, they look to Congress for leadership. They look to 
Congress for real action to produce a 5-year farm bill. Drought relief 
alone is not enough. Lord knows we dealt with a drought in California 
that was devastating in 2009 and 2010.
  Passing a farm bill would give farmers, ranchers, and dairymen the 
certainty that they need for the next 5 years in a part of the economy 
that has been doing, generally speaking, fairly well over the last 
several years. This includes long-term authority for disaster 
assistance along with all the other support from a farm bill that helps 
them do their work in the conservation programs, in the EQUIP programs, 
market-access programs, and in research that is vital to American 
agriculture.
  This bill, sadly, would pit disaster relief against the conservation 
programs that farmers in my district rely on.
  We need real solutions; and that solution, in my opinion, is passing 
a farm bill--not half-hearted actions to protect our political 
interests.
  My colleagues, we have the time. Let's go to a conference committee 
and produce a bipartisan farm bill. It's traditionally the most 
bipartisan thing we do in this Congress.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer) who's been dealing with drought issues for 2 years in 
a row now.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6233. 
Like

[[Page 13212]]

the chairman and the ranking member, I wish we were here debating the 
5-year farm bill that was passed out of the House Ag Committee, which 
would have brought certainty and reform and would have saved the 
American taxpayers over $35 billion.
  But the truth is we have a drought across this country. Over 75 
percent of the areas that produce agriculture in this country are 
reporting either abnormally dry or worse conditions. That doesn't just 
impact farmers and ranchers; that impacts Americans who consume food 
products all across this country, driving food costs up.
  So what we are doing today is doing something we should have done 
when we wrote the previous farm bill, and that is making sure that this 
program is extended for an additional year, and doing it in a way that 
is very fiscally responsible. In fact, we're going to save the American 
taxpayers $256 million by making some shifts, moving some money around 
and making sure that these farmers and ranchers that are going through 
this tremendous drought have the resources they need to continue and to 
help somewhat mitigate the increased cost of food for our country.
  I hope that my colleagues will vote for this; but also, I hope in the 
future we will be back down on this floor debating a very important 
farm policy for American consumers and American farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to 
commend the bipartisan leadership on this committee, Chairman Lucas and 
the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for the hard work they have done and 
the leadership they've provided.
  We are faced with sort of a dilemma here. The right thing for us to 
do, that we should be doing right now, that we should have been doing 2 
or 3 days ago, was dealing with the 5-year extension of the farm bill. 
That is exactly what we need to be doing. It gives consistency. It will 
give uniformity to our very vital food industry. I might add, Mr. 
Speaker, that it is needed very desperately at this time.
  But at the same time, we are faced with a very serious drought 
situation that is pummeling our country, the likes of which we haven't 
seen in over 60 years. So the immediate and responsible thing for us to 
do is to respond to this drought crisis and pass this bill immediately 
and then resolve that the first order of business we will do when we 
return is take up the 5-year farm bill.
  Might I add that while we have this disaster facing us, which is the 
drought, we have another, and that is the food issue in this country, 
especially the issue of the SNAP program, what we refer to as the food 
stamp program, if we do not come together with a good conference 
committee report that looks at this issue with the necessity that the 
problem presents.
  Under the current bill on the House side passed by the Agriculture 
Committee, according to CBO, there will be over 300,000 children who 
will go without food. There will be 155,000 veterans who will go 
without food, and nearly 200,000 of our seniors. What I'm saying is we 
have not just a drought crisis, which we are going to respond to today, 
but we have got to come back and deal with this other crisis as we work 
to put together a very effective 5-year farm bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), one of the most active members of the 
committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the 
Ag Committee for his important leadership on this issue and many, many 
others.
  Mr. Speaker, just like in Nebraska where we're hoping for rain, I'm 
actually hoping for a long-term farm bill. Agriculture remains the only 
bright spot in the American economy, and it is critical that we build a 
multi-year farm bill that is built upon our strengthens and provides 
certainty for our Nation's agriculture producers.
  Last month, with bipartisan support, the House Agriculture Committee, 
under Chairman Lucas's leadership, approved such a bill. The House 
should act on it before the current farm bill expires this September.
  While the 5-year proposal is not perfect, it provides adequate 
protections for farmers and ranchers. It supports young and beginning 
farmers and embraces new market opportunities domestically and 
internationally while also reducing spending. The proposal charts a new 
way forward for America's farmers and ranchers while respecting the 
Federal Government's severe budgetary constraints.
  Mr. Speaker, agricultural policy is essential to America's food 
security. But agriculture is also critical to our energy policy, 
environmental policy, even our national security policy. A new farm 
bill is imperative for the future of the agriculture sector, but also 
for the well-being of our country.
  While I'm disappointed that we are not acting on a long-term bill, it 
is important that we consider this legislation, and I support its 
passage. Drought conditions are affecting many parts of the Nation. 
This bill reinstates past legislative provisions--there's nothing new 
here--and it gives relief to livestock producers. The measure is paid 
for and actually reduces spending, while attempting to remain 
appropriately sensitive to important conservation programs. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), one of my lead subcommittee chairmen who put a 
tremendous amount of effort into this farm bill process.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise today in 
strong support of this disaster relief bill. To fully appreciate the 
need for this legislation--and it's going to pass the House today, we 
hope, and be signed into law by the President this week--just turn on 
your television or look at the front page of any newspaper to see the 
details of the drought gripping our countryside today.
  As a west Texan from cattle country, I know a little bit about 
droughts. The record-breaking drought that we faced last year in Texas, 
that's still being felt this year, by the way, was heart breaking for 
all of us, especially those who make their living raising livestock and 
growing crops that feed and clothe our Nation.
  I'm sometimes called upon to explain how good can come out of a bad 
situation. Maybe this is one of those times. I hope my colleagues who 
doubt the need for farm policy might think a little bit about what our 
country's farmers and ranchers are going through right now, and then 
imagine what many of them are going through without crop insurance, 
which is the one and only reason why we are not in here today debating 
a multi-billion dollar disaster package. In other words, an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  Unfortunately, our livestock producers do not have crop insurance. 
They have to depend on disaster programs instead. Regrettably, the 
authority for this disaster relief has expired and must be renewed in 
order for livestock producers to receive relief, and that's what this 
bill does.
  But the need for farm policy goes beyond addressing droughts and 
whatever else Mother Nature might throw at us. It also is responding to 
high foreign tariffs and subsidies that are climbing higher and higher, 
breaking records, while funding for U.S. farm policy is at an all-time 
low. Agriculture matters to our economy, to our balance of trade, to 
U.S. jobs, and to our national security.
  Importantly, the bill before us is fully paid for so it doesn't 
increase the deficit. We offset the costs of using dollars from two 
conservation accounts that have never been spent on the conservation 
purposes that they were intended for. So there is zero impact on 
conservation programs, but it'll be helping farmers and ranchers.
  I know many of my colleagues say we should be passing a 5-year farm 
bill instead of disaster relief. No one is more committed to enacting 
long-term farm

[[Page 13213]]

policy than I am. I will continue to work that way. We passed a good 
one in the House Agriculture Committee under the leadership of Chairman 
Lucas, but I think everyone appreciates the time it will take to pass 
this House and get to conference. That is extensive, and something our 
producers don't have the time.
  I'm disappointed in some of our farm groups that they've objected to 
the various ways the House is working and attempting to advance our 
Nation's farm policy. A number of these groups are the very same groups 
that insisted on dragging out this debate by trying to advance farm 
policy that only works, if at all, for one region of the country, or 
only for a couple of crops. Our livestock producers need help now, and 
that's what the House is about to do, I hope, and that is always 
respond in times of natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham) who does very important work for agriculture on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me the 
time here to speak, and I rise in support today of H.R. 6233, the 
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. As we all know, farmers and 
ranchers are really suffering from one of the worst and most widespread 
droughts to have occurred in decades.

                              {time}  1220

  While over half of Iowa has been designated as a disaster area 
because of the drought, farmers at home are really hurting and really 
feeling the pain of the drought.
  While the forecasts are not good for the future as far as rain and 
the conditions appear to be worsening every day out there--the 
temperatures near 100 degrees--we're at a critical point. Congress 
can't legislate rain like we'd like to, but we can certainly provide 
farmers the certainty that they need to address the disaster, which is 
the worst in decades.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the livestock producers have no safety 
net to fall back on because the disaster programs expired last year. 
Extending these programs to the end of fiscal year 2012 will give 
farmers the confidence and the certainty to prepare for what's going to 
be a very difficult year.
  We're all pushing as hard as we can, doing everything possible to get 
a new farm bill done, and I would encourage everyone to work to that 
end. In the meantime, this is what we have to do. We need to do this 
immediately to give certainty to those livestock producers all over the 
country that are facing a very, very difficult situation with the 
drought.
  So again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
6233. Let's move this today and then get on to a new farm bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a tireless voice for rural 
American production of agriculture.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the drought which is devastating U.S. 
producers of agriculture throughout the Nation poses a serious, serious 
threat to every American family who plans on visiting the grocery store 
this year. American farmers and ranchers are on the ropes right now, 
and this legislation is desperately needed.
  I can't tell you how important the leadership and cooperation of 
Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson has been on this issue 
because, statistically speaking, this is the worst drought since the 
1950s. The forage situation for livestock is the worst since 1933.
  In southern Missouri, the drought is breaking the life's work of 
dairy farmers like Stacey McCallister, who wrote this to me:

       I've been talking to some farmers, and the feed prices are 
     going to put us out of business. Milk isn't coming up at all 
     on price and feed costs are doubling in cases. The sorriest 
     hay that you could feed a heifer is at $200 a ton; I used to 
     buy it at $30 a ton. I feel like my heart is in my stomach 
     right now.

  This picture of his farm tells the heartbreaking story. According to 
Stacey, even if you want to sell off part of your herd, you're out of 
luck. There's no more room for cows at the sale barn where they hold 
livestock auctions. There is about one penny of profit margin on the 
milk he's selling today. Our response to this disaster must begin with 
this effort to reinstate the emergency programs which were allowed to 
expire last October. We've paid for the reauthorization of these four 
programs in this legislation, and there's no reason not to renew them.

  These programs are a safety net for our livestock producers in free 
fall. They need this assistance, and we need to give it to them or else 
risk losing the heart and soul of the agricultural backbone of this 
Nation, the families who literally put food on our tables.
  I urge support for this legislation at a crucial hour of need for 
America's livestock producers.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. It's 
better than nothing, but it's not what we should be doing.
  People need to understand that this is not going to solve any 
problems for anybody over August, other than the political problem that 
they have where they go home and can't point to anything that got done, 
so they'll be able to say they voted for a bill.
  This bill is not going anyplace in the other body. They have passed 
through the other body a bipartisan bill that has a better disaster 
provision in it than what we're considering here today. Their position 
is my position, and that is that we should be moving this bill and 
getting it enacted into law.
  So, out of my friendship and respect for the chairman, I am 
supporting this bill. But I think he'll probably agree with me that we 
need to get this bill to conference. We need to get it moved. We need 
to get it done so we can get it in place by September 30, so producers 
can get what they really need out of this bill, and that is a long-term 
policy they know they can count on.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think the bill we address today is 
very straightforward. We are going to help a group of producers who, 
when the '08 farm bill passed, thought they had something they could 
depend on, but because of budget issues, the 5th year is not funded. We 
need to help them by fulfilling our commitment that what we said would 
be there will be there. We do it in a responsible way. We do it in a 
way that does not truly affect the dollars going to additional 
conservation programs, based on recent years.
  But my colleague's right. This addresses an issue that matters to 
producers who, for the last 10 months and for the next approximately 2 
months, are not able to use a program they thought would be there. But 
the underlying issue still is passing a comprehensive 5-year farm bill; 
a farm bill that is such that all commodities and all regions can 
participate; a farm bill that will provide certainty; a farm bill that 
will make sure that the food and fiber that meet the needs of American 
consumers and, yes, consumers around the world can be on the books.
  My friend and I have worked very hard, and we have made more progress 
this year than many pundits would have ever given us credit for, but 
we're not quite there yet. We may not exactly agree on every footstep 
to get there, but we agree we have to get there. Let's take care of the 
folks who are hurting today, and let's work to get that farm bill 
process completed.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 6233, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6233, 
the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. I agree that we must take 
steps to assist farmer and rancher families affected by extreme drought 
conditions, but doing so at the expense of national conservation 
programs is a shortsighted approach. Conservation programs help 
preserve farms and ranchlands, improve water quality, and enhance soil 
conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitats. These funds have been 
essential to Maryland farmers in protecting the quality of the 
Chesapeake Bay. Maintaining

[[Page 13214]]

funding for these programs and providing farmers and ranchers with the 
opportunity to do long-term conservation planning is one of the best 
investments we can make to mitigate the impact of future droughts and 
disasters. Instead of pitting disaster assistance against conservation 
programs, let's focus on our efforts on reauthorizing a five-year farm 
bill. Farmers in my district and across the Nation agree that a farm 
bill reauthorization will give them the clarity and economic certainty 
they really need to plan for their futures. I urge my colleagues to 
reject today's bill and move forward with passing comprehensive 
reauthorization.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a devastating 
drought--impacting the viability of our nation's crops and the 
livelihood of farmers in 65% of the country, including Virginia. In 
response today, I supported the Agriculture Disaster Assistance Act, 
reauthorizing disaster assistance programs, and allowing producers to 
effectively manage risk, while providing certainty to producers who are 
generally ineligible for crop insurance.
  This assistance does not come without a cost--one that is absorbed by 
some of our nation's agriculture conservation programs. These programs 
have been instrumental in aiding Virginia's agricultural community, and 
I support their efforts to protect our rivers, streams and waterways 
that make up the important Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  I believe that we must work to ensure the stability and future of our 
economy, including our nation's food sources. However as we do, we must 
remain mindful of the need to conserve our natural resources which are 
critical for agricultural production throughout the country. It is my 
hope Congress can move to pass a comprehensive Farm Bill which will 
support our nation's rich agricultural heritage while giving our 
farmers the tools they need to protect our vital natural resources.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act.
  This bill is anything but disaster assistance agriculture. It is a 
bill by Republican leadership to provide cover for not bringing up a 
real farm bill.
  Farmers and ranchers do not need a temporary disaster bill--they need 
a farm bill that provides disaster assistance but so farmers and 
ranchers can make sound future business decisions.
  Republicans often say uncertainty about ``regulation'' is harming the 
economy.
  Yet here we are considering a temporary measure when American 
agriculture needs certainty.
  It is ironic we are here considering a temporary measure that creates 
uncertainty because about a year ago the United States' credit rating 
was downgraded. Why? Republicans created uncertainty in the financial 
markets during the debt ceiling debacle.
  By taking up temporary disaster aid and not a farm bill, Republicans 
must want to downgrade American agriculture.
  This bill kicks the can down the road, as Republicans have done far 
too often.
  The House should stay and do the people's work instead of running off 
on a recess.
  We won't stay though, because Republicans refuse to compromise with 
Democrats on paying the bills due and now the farm bill languishes.
  This refusal shows us that Republicans are not serious about a farm 
bill or deficit reduction, creating jobs and growing our economy.
  If Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, they would bring 
up one of two farm bills that are out there.
  While neither bill is perfect, the Senate farm bill would reduce the 
deficit by $23 billion and the House farm bill cut spending by $35 
billion.
  If Republicans were serious about creating jobs and growing the 
economy, they would bring up a farm bill.
  Just one Title of the farm bill, the energy title, has the potential 
to generate $88.5 billion in economic activity and create nearly 
700,000 jobs.
  Finally, I oppose this temporary disaster bill not only because it 
shows lack of leadership in passing a farm bill but because of its 
shortsightedness in slashing conservation programs.
  I represent Lake Erie, which is part of the Great Lakes region that 
is responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs and generates $62 billion 
in wages.
  Lake Erie is under assault by a massive bloom of algae that is 
turning the water into a bright green pea soup.
  The substance is enough to kill a pet dog, and makes people seriously 
ill. As the summer goes on, the stench will drive tens of thousands of 
tourists and local residents inside with closed windows.
  The Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation 
Stewardship Program are two of the most effective programs in helping 
farmers and ranchers do their part to help reduce nutrient runoff 
fueling the algae bloom.
  Cutting these programs are penny wise and pound-foolish.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Let's pass a real farm 
bill.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman for his 
relentless leadership to get some relief to America's farmers and 
ranchers who are dealing with this drought. In my home state of Iowa we 
now have 42 counties that have been declared by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) as primary natural disaster areas.
  The latest crop conditions report in Iowa has 18 percent of the corn 
declared as ``very poor.'' Only one percent is rated as ``excellent''. 
Soybeans are in a very similar situation.
  Our pasture lands are in terrible condition with 55 percent of 
pasture being ``very poor.'' While lands in the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP) are being opened today for haying and grazing, it really 
isn't going to amount to much.
  As a result of these conditions, our livestock producers are going to 
have a really hard time getting feed. I appreciate that this disaster 
package will bring some relief, especially to those who have lost 
animals due to the extreme heat.
  However, let us not forget that we have work to do on a real farm 
bill. We need to get the 2012 farm bill done and in proper order, so 
that we do not have to do ad hoc disaster assistance packages and so 
that farmers can plan for the future. I appreciate the Chairman and 
Ranking Member's work on this bipartisan bill that we reported out of 
Committee and look forward to us finishing our work and bringing the 
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act to the House 
Floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 752, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 6233 is postponed.

                          ____________________