[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15640-15646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PASS THE FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, thank you, and thank you 
to my colleagues who have joined me here today to talk about an 
important piece of legislation that seemingly has gone by the wayside, 
like many, many other important issues, because of the dysfunction of 
Washington right now: a farm bill.
  Many here in America don't realize that our current farm bill has 
expired. But we have an opportunity to pass a food, nutrition, and jobs 
bill that Congress is supposed to authorize every 5 years. But since it 
expired on September 30, the good news, though, is that there is still 
an opportunity to get this 5-year farm bill passed; and when we do, we 
are going to be able to give our farmers and producers the tools they 
need to do what they do best. We can do this before next planting 
season.
  Why do we need a farm bill? To promote and grow our economy, to 
provide certainty to our farmers and producers, and to give them the 
tools they need to succeed.
  For example, crop insurance. Mr. Speaker, crop insurance is working. 
I even had the opportunity to talk to Secretary Vilsack in one of the 
hearings on our Ag Committee, and he agreed with me that crop insurance 
is working. This farm bill strengthens crop insurance, which 
strengthens our economy, because it strengthens agriculture.
  Ag is one of the bright spots in our Nation's economy right now, Mr. 
Speaker. That should not be forgotten, which is why it is crucial that 
we pass this farm bill.
  We have other policies within that bill that are very crucial to my 
district and many districts throughout this Nation: conservation, ag 
research, and trade.
  As we stand on the floor today, many of the farmers I represent are 
out in the field. Mr. Speaker, it is harvest time. That is why we are 
down here today: to let our producers know we have not forgotten and 
that we are still fighting for that 5-year farm bill.
  Farmers used to just have to worry about the uncertainty of the 
weather. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have to worry about the uncertainty of 
Washington. That is unfortunate, but it is something that we can 
correct when we work together.

[[Page 15641]]

  Mr. Speaker, I came here to govern. I sought a seat on the Ag 
Committee because I knew we would have an opportunity to leave our mark 
on this jobs legislation. We want to get this job done so that our 
farmers can continue to get their job done.
  I appreciate the many colleagues who have already spoken before me 
and the rest who are down here today for this farm bill Special Order, 
as well as many others who have helped move the farm bill forward. And 
before recognizing my colleagues so that they may share with those 
watching why we must advance a new farm bill, I want to talk about why 
the farm bill is important to the district that I represent.
  In central and southwestern Illinois, agriculture is key to our local 
economy. It is 14 counties in central and southwestern Illinois that I 
am proud to serve here in Congress on their behalf, and it is home to 
some of the most productive and costly farmland in America.
  It is also home to many in the agribusiness sector: ADM, the 
University of Illinois. My district is home to the largest gathering of 
ag producers and agricultural-related products in the country.
  This is the Farm Progress Show that was just completed in Decatur, 
Illinois, in July, a whopping success. Sloan Implement is in the 13th 
District of Illinois. GSI, another global leader, one of the largest 
employers in my district, and it happens to be the largest employer in 
my home county of Christian County. Kraft Foods in Champaign, Illinois. 
The National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center in Edwardsville, at 
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, also plays a crucial role 
for jobs, innovation, and energy independence in our area. These are 
just some of the reasons that Congress needs to keep working together 
to advance a 5-year farm bill.
  And let's not forget, again, what a bright spot agriculture has been 
on our Nation's economy. Every $1 billion in ag exports supports nearly 
8,000 American jobs. Earlier this year, the USDA, they projected $139.5 
billion in ag exports. That is more than 1.1 million jobs supported by 
American agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Benishek), my good friend and my 
colleague.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I thank my colleague from Illinois for allowing me to 
speak here today, and I want to thank you for hosting this Special 
Order hour in general.
  Mr. Speaker, although we speak today at a time when Members are very 
busy working to resolve the government shutdown, it is critical to 
remember that, while the government may have stopped, the work of our 
farmers certainly has not. Farmers in each of our districts, whether 
they are busy picking apples or harvesting fields of corn, are busy at 
this time of the year; there is no doubt about it. Autumn is the time 
that farmers in our districts normally look forward to. That is when 
they have the chance to reap the bounty of the great work that they 
have done this past year planting and tending to the land.
  Our farmers, producers, and agribusiness owners deserve better. They 
have put in the hard work. They are feeding not only Michigan's 
families, but America's families and much of the world. We owe them 
certainty. We owe them a farm bill.
  As the only Member from Michigan on the Agriculture Committee, I 
regularly speak with farmers, not only from my district, but from 
around the State. Over the last year, they have continually expressed 
the need for certainty. While they have different ideas on some 
specific provisions of the overall farm bill, they all agree that we 
need to get this done.
  Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard with my colleagues to move the farm 
bill forward. I have worked with many local stakeholders in Michigan to 
ensure that their concerns are addressed in the bill. Now is the time 
to move forward to a conference.
  This afternoon, I come to the floor to say, simply, let's get this 
done. Let's go to conference, work out our differences, and get a farm 
bill done. We owe it to our farmers. We owe it to the hardworking 
families around the country that rely on the food that our farmers 
produce.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the farmers of northern 
Michigan for the outstanding work that they have done this season. Now 
let's get this farm bill done.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague, Mr. 
Benishek.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for again allowing us this opportunity to 
talk about how important ag is going to be in our economy.
  Let's talk about how important this farm bill is to get passed and 
how we are not that far apart when it comes to the differences in the 
funding levels with the Senate bill that should be conferenced. And let 
us not also forget--let us not forget that agriculture isn't just 
important to the Midwest. It is also important to States like Michigan, 
where my colleague who just spoke was from. We have heard from 
individuals from California, from Georgia, from Montana. Ag is a 
nationwide issue, and we have seen nationwide success in agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. YODER. I appreciate my friend from Illinois for putting together 
this hour for us to be able to come down and have a conversation about 
how we protect the American farmer.
  For months and months now, we have been having a debate in the United 
States House and Senate about how we can put together legislation that 
will ensure that the men and women who bring in the crops, who tend to 
the livestock, who create the food source for our Nation and the world 
have certain policies that are predictable and that encourage farming 
as a way of life to continue in the United States.
  So I join my colleagues here, those from down in southern Illinois 
to--we just heard from my colleague, Dan Benishek from Michigan, who 
believes passionately in agriculture and protecting farmers. We are 
here together today united, standing on behalf of the farmers in our 
country.
  So I call on my colleagues to help us get a farm bill done. Farmers 
have been waiting a long time for Congress to work together to find a 
solution. We are obviously divided on a lot of things, but we ought to 
be united on helping protect the American farmer and our American food 
supply.
  In Kansas, farming is not just a means to make money, and certainly, 
it is a significant part of the Kansas economy. Along with several 
other parts, farming and agriculture is a key component of the Kansas 
economy. But it is also a way for Kansans and Americans to put food on 
the table for the world. Kansas is the number one wheat producer in the 
country, wheat that ends up feeding hungry Kansans, hungry Americans in 
all 50 States, and on most continents. They put in long, hard hours to 
bring in millions of bushels of grain, grain that will end up on the 
tables of the entire Nation and the entire world.
  But it is also a way of life. Now farmers at home right now--I just 
spoke with a farmer earlier today. Farmers are bringing in--they are 
harvesting their soybeans. Some are still picking corn.
  For generations, people have come to States like Kansas and Illinois 
and California and Michigan, and they have come to build a way of life. 
They have taken, in the case of Kansas, a prairie--it was undeveloped--
and they came out there, and they brought their families and they took 
risk, much risk to carve a lifestyle out of the prairie. And through 
that hard work, through that determination, through that sweat off 
their brow, they tamed the wilderness and, in the process, they helped 
build the greatest nation the world has ever seen. And along the way, 
they asked for little in return. They built a nation with great bedrock 
values, good schools, good communities. It was all centered around the 
small family farmer.
  So that is one of the things we are down here to protect and to talk 
about

[[Page 15642]]

is continuing that American tradition of the small family farmer. And 
so they have worked hard. They work long days, sunup to sundown. 
Sometimes farmers will work through the night, 24-hour shifts even, to 
bring in the crops when the time has come.
  I grew up on a farm myself. I remember going out, my dad going out in 
the middle of the winter and bringing a round bale to our cattle and 
ensuring that the livestock could have feed. And that meat that they 
produced, we produced and farmers produce all across the country, that 
ends up taking care of Americans everywhere.
  So now those farmers, they are counting on us. When they plant their 
fall crops, they need predictability and they need certainty. It is 
time to move past short-term bills. It is time to move past short-term 
promises. We need to move towards long-term policies that will create 
stability, that will allow farmers to plant, allow farmers to go back 
to doing what they do best: growing food, feeding a hungry Nation.
  This fall, Kansas farmers are hard at work bringing in the autumn 
harvest, and they are planting the 2014 crop. They have patiently 
waited for Congress to act on a farm bill. Now is the time to move 
forward.
  The farm bill provides farmers with crucial safety net programs that 
allow them to protect their operations from uncertainty and the sudden 
downturns that can occur when growing crops and raising livestock. 
These programs are essential in providing farmers with the certainty 
they need to be successful.
  So as we have this larger debate about how to solve the debt crisis, 
I think farmers have been admirable in this debate. Farmers came 
forward and said, Look, you know, we receive direct payments. We know 
that is a burden on the Treasury. We know there are a lot of burdens on 
the Treasury. We hope that we can all pitch in to help solve our 
national debt crisis. We are going to voluntarily, we are going to give 
those things up.
  And every other group that comes before Washington, most groups give 
up nothing. They want more. In fact, in Washington, when you don't get 
more than you got last year, it is a cut.
  Farmers said, We are willing to take a cut. We are willing to take 
billions of dollars of cuts because we want to do our part to ensure 
that we are helping resolve the national debt crisis.

                              {time}  1600

  So they were first in line to give up support, and some of that 
support was very crucial to farms and has been crucial to farmers to 
keep them from ending up in bankruptcy or farms from going under. They 
are giving that up. No more direct payments. Those are the kinds of 
reforms we need to do.
  Now, what they have asked for in return is a little protection of 
risk. The expense today to put out a field of crops like corn, 
soybeans, milo, or wheat, in Kansas, creates a tremendous amount of 
risk--risk that banks won't cover unless there is some sort of 
protection in the event of a flood, hailstorm, or a drought, and 
sometimes all of the above. You can wipe out a single crop overnight.
  These farmers have invested their entire livelihood. They don't have 
a 401(k). They don't have a pension. They don't have some corporate 
plan to protect their retirement. Their future is in the crop they're 
laying out in that field, and the proceeds from that crop are going to 
go to investing in the next crop. And so if that crop goes under and 
there is no crop insurance, there is no protection for those farmers, 
then those farmers go under, they go bankrupt, and that way of life 
ends.
  And so my heart goes out to those farmers that that may happen to, 
but it is a larger issue than just the farmers. Without crop insurance, 
without that protection, those farmers lose those farms and that means 
we don't have a food supply that we can count on. That means that the 
world doesn't have the food that they need to feed the hungry. I know 
most people get food from the grocery store these days, but it comes 
from the fields of Kansas and Illinois and places in between.
  So it is my hope that Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate, and the 
President will work together in the coming days to put a farm bill on 
the floor that we can all get behind that can go to the President's 
desk and receive his signature. We've got a lot of divisions, but we 
would be united today--all of us--in protection, in fighting for the 
American farmer.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. My colleague, Mr. Yoder from Kansas, 
brought up so many great points of why it is crucial to have this 
debate here on the floor of the House.
  It seems as though farmers get a bad rap. There is a lot of talk on 
this floor about growing our economy; and, frankly, ag has been a 
bright spot in our economy, Mr. Speaker. It is just like Washington. 
Because of inaction of--a lot of times, Republicans and Democrats--we 
are not able to continue to allow them to grow their portion of the 
economy. It just seems like the right hand works against the left 
sometimes here in Washington. I just want to see us put some good 
Midwestern common sense that many of us learned right on the family 
farms in the Midwest, right here to work and into action in Washington, 
D.C.
  Speaking of common sense, I want to introduce my good friend, my 
colleague from the great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. I couldn't agree 
more. I would like to see a little farm-country sense brought to 
Washington. I think if that were leading the charge on a lot of fronts, 
we could resolve some of these issues we have been facing pretty 
quickly.
  I am real proud, Mr. Speaker, to be here to talk about agriculture. 
When I was first elected in 2008, sworn in in 2009, one of my first 
picks that I asked for on committee assignments was Agriculture. Today, 
I'm proud to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee for Conservation, 
Energy, and Forestry on the Agriculture Committee.
  I am proud to be from the Keystone State. I had a number of 
colleagues at that point in 2009 ask me why would I ever be on 
Agriculture when I am from Pennsylvania. The fact is, it is our number 
one industry in Pennsylvania. We have many commodities. We are one of 
the top providers and producers for the United States--and sometimes 
other parts of the world--in terms of our commodities that we raise and 
we grow. We can't speak enough about the importance of this farm bill.
  There are a lot of reasons why we all, every colleague in this 
Chamber, should be supporting the farm bill. I have to say that there 
are fewer than, I believe, 100 of our congressional districts, out of 
435, where we actually grow and raise the food to feed this Nation and 
much of the world. But the fact is every district has Americans that 
shake hands with a farmer at least three times a day every time they 
pick up a fork.
  And so one of the principles that guides me, Mr. Speaker, in terms of 
my decisionmaking on any issue, I call it principle-based leadership. I 
always start and try to define what my principles are first. By the 
way, we have been working on this for 4\1/2\ years, actually. I 
remember having hearings. I was in the minority my first 2 years, and 
we had hearings. The first hearing was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 
specifically on the dairy title.
  But the principles that have guided me since day one here in terms of 
agriculture is that America should always be the place where we have 
the most affordable, highest quality, and safest food supply anywhere 
in the world. So every decision I have made in supporting the 
development, the writing, and actually the passing of this farm bill 
has been to honor those three principles.
  In addition to that, my good friend from Michigan talked about the 
importance of food security, and I agree with that. It's the biggest 
threat to our national security. And there are a lot of them out there, 
Mr. Speaker. I have got two kids that just got back from Afghanistan. I 
understand terrorist threats and threats to our financial situation, 
but the most imminent threat to our national security would be at 
whatever point we would begin to rely on another country for our food 
supply. This farm bill is the single most important piece of Federal 
legislation to

[[Page 15643]]

make sure America has the most affordable, highest quality, and safest 
food supply.
  There are a lot of things that this bill does. It repeals and 
consolidates more than 100 programs. This is a great example for the 
rest of government. This is exactly step one on how we begin to reduce 
our spending appropriately--looking at things that either don't work, 
things that are duplicative, things that are just not fulfilling the 
purpose for which it was designed.
  It eliminates direct payments, which farmers receive regardless of 
market conditions.
  I am not sure I would have supported past farm bills, to tell you the 
truth, that were passed before I came here; but I support this one 
because the reforms we have brought to the agriculture side and the 
nutrition side are very good. They are very good for the sustainability 
of our food supply and programs such as our SNAP program.
  It streamlines and reforms commodity policy. We are also giving 
producers a choice in how to best manage risk. It includes the first 
reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since the 
Welfare Reform Act of 1996.
  Why is that important? Because the reforms we put in place, it 
preserves the future integrity of the food stamp program so that those 
in the future who need those programs, those men, women, and children 
who find themselves in poverty circumstances where they need that 
assistance, they will get it, if we protect the integrity of that 
program. It is only through these reforms that we are putting into 
place that we offer those protections so we will be assured that the 
food stamp program continues into the future to meet the needs of those 
who need.
  It consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13, improves program 
delivery to producers, and saves more than $6 billion. That's an area 
of the farm title that I chair. The subcommittee has jurisdiction on 
conservation.
  There are at least four reasons I can think of why that move is 
extremely important. Number one is cost. This country is facing 
significant debt, and so we have to be conscious and careful with our 
spending. We knew that the farm bill--the pie itself--would be smaller. 
So I think that is just one of the realities.
  Second is the need. We are a country that feeds not just 311 million 
Americans, but we are feeding a lot of the rest of the world. And to 
allow land to sit idle under the context of some government-funded 
conservation program is just wrong. We don't want people to go hungry, 
and so putting more land that is appropriate back into productivity is 
a very appropriate thing to do; and we do that with this farm bill.
  Third is effectiveness. The fact is that under the existing 
conservation programs, before the reforms we proposed, we have had 
perfectly sound, tillable, very productive land sitting idle and 
sitting fallow and receiving some type of government support under a 
conservation program to do that.
  I have met young individuals I am very impressed with that want to go 
into farming that have never been in farming before. Some have been in 
farming, but they can't afford to go out and purchase acreage; and so 
they have to rent acreage. And they are competing under the existing 
conservation programs with the government; and in competing with the 
government, they can't do that. They just can't pay that.
  All the parts of this farm bill have been well thought out and well 
prepared. I am very appreciative of the work that has been done on the 
part of land grant universities, the fact that we are strengthening the 
role of science and technology when it comes to agriculture. A lot of 
people talk about STEM--science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics. I like to talk about how agriculture is all about science 
and technology.
  And I shout out to my own alma mater, Penn State University, which is 
a land grant university. Those universities help us advance that 
science and innovation and that technology.
  I will finally talk briefly about we have probably one of the best 
forestry titles that we have ever had in this farm bill in maybe a 
hundred years. We've got great things in there in terms of making sure 
that timber is recognized and eligible for that biopreferred labeling.
  Today, of all things, the original renewable resource of wood has 
never been eligible. You could buy a box of bamboo flooring--we don't 
grow bamboo in this country--and it has got a USDA stamp of approval, 
biopreferred. But if you buy a box of good hardwood cherry from the 
Pennsylvania Fifth Congressional District, it is not eligible. That 
changes in this farm bill that we passed out of the House and we are 
going to go to conference with the Senate on.
  The categorical exclusion allows the Forest Service not to have to 
waste money during these NEPA analyses every time they do trail 
maintenance or clear power lines or just routine things that take money 
away from actively managing a forest in a healthy way.
  Finally, the forest access road was a great amendment which basically 
reinforces that our forests are non-point sources of pollution. That 
goes a long way in terms of allowing our forests to be managed under 
State-adopted best practices.
  And so I want to thank the gentleman for coordinating this Special 
Order on a subject that every American should be fully in tune to 
because of how important it is to have affordable, high-quality, and 
safe food. That is what our farm bill does.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to address something that my colleague from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) brought up. He talked about research. 
Research in agriculture is crucial to our ability here in America to 
continue to feed the world. We feed the world from America's farms, and 
it is under-appreciated and taken for granted.
  Part of this farm bill is a research title, where the Agricultural 
and Food Research Initiative through the National Institute for Food 
and Agriculture was reauthorized.
  Other ways we strengthen and promoted ag research in this bill are 
doing things like providing new research funding for specialty crops, 
beginning farmers, and organic agriculture. We have improved 
accountability and transparency of the ag research programs, and we 
have harmonized policies under the various competitive grants programs 
to improve program efficiency and reduce wasteful spending.
  Many of my colleagues are talking about ag leading the way in 
reducing spending here in Washington. Our farmers need to be 
congratulated for that.
  The University of Illinois, in my district--another land grant 
institution--uses many of these public research programs. Our students 
are being trained on how to make our food supply safer and better; and 
through AFRI, the University of Illinois has conducted cutting-edge 
research aimed at improving food security, achieving more efficient 
crop production, and promoting animal health through livestock genome 
sequencing.
  Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, the Southern Illinois University 
Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center. This is an example of a public-private 
partnership that is working, where public funds were used in its 
initial construction; but private entities are doing cutting-edge 
research to make our Nation's fuel supply cheaper and make our Nation's 
security better.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague from the 
great State of Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. I want to thank my colleague and friend from Illinois, 
Congressman Davis, for his incredible leadership on this issue. I know 
of nobody in Congress who is working harder for the American family 
farmer than Congressman Davis. This Special Order today is just one 
more example of your leadership.
  Farming is hard work, and it is vital to Indiana. Ag industries 
contribute almost $38 billion a year to the Hoosier economy, supporting 
nearly 190,000

[[Page 15644]]

jobs. The farmers who provide these jobs work from dawn until way past 
dusk and face great risks when withering droughts or excess rains 
threaten to wreck their crops.
  Despite these challenges, Hoosier farmers manage to overcome 
adversity, succeed in their businesses, and feed the world. Too often, 
their work is made even harder because of uncertainties and 
inefficiencies in Federal farm policy.

                              {time}  1615

  The problems with Federal farm laws are many:
  Price supports inflate the prices of some consumer goods; payments 
are made to people not actually farming; outdated and duplicative 
programs waste money that could be put to better use; rules regarding 
disaster assistance are too complicated; and they fail to provide 
enough certainty about whether and what return farmers will receive 
when they reinvest any profits in their family business.
  Many are surprised that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, commonly called ``food stamps,'' is administered by the 
Department of Agriculture, the USDA. Most agree the program is not well 
managed. It pays too many people who should not be eligible for help, 
diverting help from those who really need the assistance. There aren't 
enough incentives to encourage people to find work, and there is too 
much waste, fraud, and abuse.
  That's why we need a farm bill.
  The farm bill which passed the House is not perfect, but it would 
save $40 billion over the next decade, in part, by repealing or 
consolidating more than 100 programs that don't work, could work 
better, or are duplicative in purpose. The bill would stop the nonsense 
policy of paying people not to farm. Instead, it would give farmers 
greater flexibility to utilize federally backed crop insurance to 
manage risk. It also would require food stamp recipients to work more, 
get drug tested, and become self-sufficient.
  American icon Paul Harvey once said:

       And, on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned 
     paradise and said, ``I need a caretaker,'' and so God made 
     the farmer.

  Others have spoken about how important it is that we stand up and be 
a champion for those who farm. A defeat of the farm bill maintains the 
status quo. We need a conference, and we need a farm bill. A defeat 
would hurt farmers and taxpayers, but both need the certainty of 
knowing that farm and nutrition assistance programs work as they should 
so scarce taxpayer resources aren't wasted on food stamp fraud or on 
programs that just don't work.
  We need commonsense farm reform policy to prevent waste and to make 
sure the next generation of farmers gets its chance to run the family 
farm.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my good friend and 
colleague, Congressman Luke Messer, a true leader on so many issues 
here in Congress and for the Midwest. Thank you for being here today to 
talk about how important agriculture is to our economy.
  I know much has been brought up about crop insurance. Some who don't 
represent agricultural districts think crop insurance is a program that 
is wasteful, that it is welfare for farmers. Let me remind everyone, 
Mr. Speaker, that before we had the crop insurance program, farmers 
didn't have to have skin in the game. They have to pay premiums just 
like we have to do for life insurance, auto insurance and other types 
of insurance. This is what makes America work. This is why crop 
insurance is working.
  Before this program, we would have supplemental, ad hoc disaster 
assistance, and Members of Congress who served before many of us would 
come to this floor and pass bills to fund disaster assistance. Let me 
remind you, Mr. Speaker, that those weren't budgeted. At a time when 
decisions were made to basically put the financial future of our 
country in jeopardy decades before now, they were still passing 
disaster assistance bills that cost taxpayers billions. Crop insurance 
changed that. Farmers have skin in the game. They pay their premiums, 
and it stops us--it stops Congress right now--from spending beyond its 
means.
  It has been said before that this farm bill is an example of how 
Washington begins to work once again. We are looking toward our 
financial future, and we are looking to balance our budget through 
bills like this farm bill. We are going to begin to put a down payment 
on the unsustainable $17 trillion of debt that your kids, Mr. Speaker, 
and my kids shouldn't have to pay.
  With that, I yield to my friend from my birthplace State, the great 
State of Iowa. He is my good friend and colleague and a leader in ag 
policy, Mr. King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for organizing 
this Special Order here today and for committing one hour of floor time 
to the discussion of the farm bill and the need to get one passed.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't get very many debates on agriculture here in 
the House of Representatives, and fewer and fewer people actually 
represent agriculture districts. There has been not so much a migration 
of people from the farms, although that has happened, but a 
concentration of people in the cities, and they lose track of where 
their food comes from and what it takes to produce that food.
  So we are here at this point, and I want to start off with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Illinois with regard to crop insurance. I 
am going to pull these numbers from memory, and anyone can go back and 
check them, but they're going to be conceptually accurate and, perhaps, 
even precisely right.
  If my memory serves me, back during some of those years when it 
couldn't rain--and that existed back in the eighties--it seems to me 
that, in 1988, we had 13 percent of the producers who actually had crop 
insurance. Since that time--from that time forward until this modern 
era--there were disaster payments after disaster payments. For any 
place that had a drought, for any place that had a flood, there was a 
discussion in Congress, and sometimes those disaster areas got rolled 
up together. Let's take a disaster out West and add that to a disaster 
in the Midwest and add that to a disaster in the South, and there might 
be a flood and two droughts packaged together with a disaster payment 
to bail people out.
  I remember, when I first came here in 2003, there was a drought out 
West in Nebraska. And was there going to be disaster money? We looked 
at that, and we looked at aerial photos. Gee, it looked like here were 
these really beautiful, green circles from the air, and they were going 
to be in areas that got disaster payments. You all know what those are 
if you come from farm country. Those were the pivot irrigation systems. 
You're not going to have a drought if your irrigation system is 
running, but in the corners where they didn't have the boom to lay down 
and irrigate the corners, they were burned out. They said, Gee, we 
ought to get a disaster for the corner of our 160--the four corners of 
it--even though we've got a good crop, 200 bushels of corn, underneath 
the pivot system.
  Those kinds of things were discussed here in this Congress, and I 
want to thank the Representative from Nebraska, Tom Osborne, who also 
was a pretty good football coach, for saying, This isn't right, and 
let's get that part correct.
  We don't have those discussions anymore because, back in '88, there 
was the 13 percent who had crop insurance. It's back up to the point 
now where, I believe, the number is 88 percent due. We suffered through 
the worst flood in my lifetime in 2011 when the Missouri River ran hill 
to hill from mid-June until mid-September and flooded out, according to 
the Secretary of Agriculture, 500,000 acres. 500,000 acres were under 
water. Of course, all of that was a complete wipeout. You could fly 
over it, and you could see corn. As we say, you could row corn that was 
in 3 feet of water and corn that was about a foot and a half tall when 
it got covered by the flood. We didn't have a disaster payment for that 
because the crop insurance covered the flood out. In the following year 
of 2012, there was an epic drought. It was the same situation in that 
the crop insurance covered it.

[[Page 15645]]

  In many of these States--and let's start out with my State, which I 
know--the premium reflects the risk. Now, it shifts from State to State 
and history to history, but it's hard to do that calculation. You can't 
do a snapshot of 1 year because, of course, 1 year might be a drought 
year, and the next year might be a flood year, and the next 25 years 
might be excellent, and I hope they are. So, if you look over a span of 
time--a decade is a minimum, and maybe a generation is a better way to 
look at this--and are able to frame the kind of experience we have with 
weather, the premium needs to be moved in a direction in which it 
better reflects the risk, but it has been a very good thing, the crop 
insurance piece of this.
  Then, as I look at this farm bill, I want to remind the people, Mr. 
Speaker, that, for years, there have been direct payments, direct 
payments that went in to the producer who signed up per acre--roughly, 
a $20 per acre payment might be reflective of that era--and we saw 
this: we saw commodities prices going up, and we saw profitability in 
agriculture. When that happened, our producers came to us, people like 
the Farm Bureau, the Corn Growers, the Soybean Association, and they 
said the time comes when we need to just let go of these direct 
payments. They came forward and said, Here. Will you take my direct 
payments? I don't need them.
  Hats off to anybody who has got Federal dollars coming into their 
operations. They gave up direct payments willingly. That's in this 
bill. It's in this bill, and it makes it permanent, putting an end to 
direct payments. By the way, in the last farm bill--the 2008 farm bill, 
it turned out to be--I tried to rename the direct payments then as the 
``conservation compliance payments'' because that's what they actually 
were. If they existed, I would say ``they are.'' It's a way to say to 
producers that all of us are invested in the future productivity of our 
soil. We are going to ask you to be good stewards of the soil, and this 
is, actually, in many cases, a token incentive that you do that. So 
that's going by the wayside.
  This bill also eliminates several existing programs and rolls into 
two separate programs a shallow loss and a deep loss program that, I 
think, is a prudent use of the resources. We also said we are going to 
cut money out of this ag side, not just the direct payments, but we 
have dialed this thing down to the tune of $20 billion. There are $20 
billion in cuts out of this bill on the agriculture side.
  To draw a comparison, Mr. Speaker, one could think of the other part 
of this farm bill that is not much discussed--I don't know today--which 
is the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that I chair, the Nutrition 
Subcommittee. Now, the numbers were that about 78 percent of the 
previous farm bill went to nutrition and a little better than 20 
percent went to agriculture and then some miscellaneous along the way. 
So we just rounded it. For easy talking purposes, it is 80 percent to 
SNAP--food stamps--nutrition programs and 20 percent to farmers. We 
call it the ``farm bill,'' but it is 4 to 1 nutrition. When I came to 
this town, there were 19 million people who were on food stamps, and we 
called them ``food stamps'' then. By the time Barack Obama became 
President, that number was about 28 million people who were on food 
stamps, and now that number is north of 47 million people--on its way 
to 48 million people--who are on food stamps. Now, it is partly because 
this administration believes and has said openly--in fact, I will just 
quote our Secretary of Agriculture:

       For every dollar that you hand out in SNAP benefits--that 
     would mean food stamps, Mr. Speaker--you get $1.84 in 
     economic activity.

  I've heard Steny Hoyer, the minority whip, say to us:

       The best stimulation that you can get--the quickest you can 
     get in your economy--is food stamps and unemployment checks.

  Now, that's an economic development plan for you, isn't it, Mr. 
Speaker, if you could just hand out more food stamps and hand out more 
unemployment checks? That's the best bump you can get to grow your 
economy? What kind of a country are we if they think that's what is 
going to drive our economy?
  People on that side of the aisle resisted their reduction in the food 
stamp program, and we brought categorical changes into it. So, as it 
has grown into an over $800 billion program--that's over 10 years, 
roughly, a number that approaches about $83 billion a year--we have 
gone from 19 million people a year on food stamps to 28 million people 
when Barack Obama became President, up now to nearly 48 million people 
on food stamps, with millions of dollars being spent by the USDA to 
advertise food stamps in order to get more people to sign up on food 
stamps--millions--and minions are going out there who are, actually, 
physically signing them up. That's what is going on.
  We don't need to be expanding the dependency class in America. We 
need to expand the independency class in America, and we want to make 
sure that we get those resources to the people who need them. That's 
what this bill does. It changes the categorical eligibility in such a 
way that those who need those resources still have access to them.
  One of those categorical eligibility changes has to do with, if a 
child qualifies for a free and reduced lunch, it isn't automatic that 
the family gets food stamps any longer under this bill. People on the 
other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have used that to argue that we 
are going to kick 120,000 kids off of food stamps. It is not true. That 
is the most extreme example they can come up with to embellish a number 
to try to scare people off of the reform that we need. What it really 
means is, if that number is right, they have to go reapply in a 
legitimate way. If they are eligible, they are eligible, and they will 
still get their food stamps.

                              {time}  1630

  But they found a little sliver to make an argument that is not the 
objective vision on what is going on.
  We see that EBT cards, the Electronic Benefits Transfer cards, have 
been used for tattoos. They have been used at the massage parlor. You 
can see the neon signs that say, ``We take EBT.'' That is just straight 
up. That is not talking about the 50 percent discount that is the going 
rate for cash that you can get for your EBT card.
  We need to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. We need to move 
these reforms in place. We have seen our agriculture producers step up 
and say, I am going to give up my conservation compliance/direct 
payments. And we reform some of the programs. We keep the pieces in 
place that we need so that there is a predictability in agriculture.
  Our producers need predictability. There is no guarantee when it 
comes to agriculture. You are taking a risk. But at least we can 
predict the Federal Government's policy. We need to give 5 years of 
policy guarantee for our agriculture producers.
  We need to start the long march to start to reform the expansion of 
the dependency class that has been a political calculation on the part 
of the administration. Do the responsible thing for the taxpayers. And, 
by the way, slow down on this burden that is being heaped upon those 
children yet to be born called our national debt.
  That is the picture. There is an urgency. Let's get this done.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership here.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for a 
question, absolutely.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. As chair of the nutrition jurisdiction, 
are the school lunch programs within title IV of the farm bill?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. In response to the gentleman's question, no, school 
lunch programs are not.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That was my reading. I have read the 
farm bill, yet I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
a lot about the changes to the reforms.
  As I mentioned in my remarks, and you reaffirmed, we are trying to 
preserve this program for people who truly

[[Page 15646]]

need it who meet the eligibility by filling out an application. But I 
guess I get confused when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle use rhetoric that they claim that somehow school lunches are 
impacted or the school breakfast program is impacted by our work on the 
farm bill.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I would say that there are 
times when people that are in the political business will intentionally 
conflate terms and arguments because it suits their agenda rather than 
informs their constituents, Mr. Speaker. That is what I believe is 
happening here.
  If anyone is looking for proof positive that the school lunch program 
is not part of title IV--any part of this farm bill--all they have to 
do is look at the record of the committee and they can see that this 
person right here, Steve King, offered no amendment to the school lunch 
program that would have prohibited the Secretary of Agriculture from 
rationing calories to our kids in the school lunch program.
  I wish we had that language for us here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. We would have an engaging debate.
  In fact, a year and a half ago, if I have got my dates right, the 
First Lady had an idea that she wanted a Let's Move program to go. The 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed during a lame duck session in 
2010 by the then Speaker of the House Speaker Pelosi. They passed the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. That gave no authority to the Secretary 
of Agriculture to ration calories to kids in the school lunch program, 
which is not part of this farm bill, but they did it anyway. Now we are 
starving kids in school. That ought to be something that outrages the 
other side. But they will not show any outrage because they defend the 
First Lady's Let's Move, which, by the way, is a critical service and 
it was not shut down in the shutdown.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The gentleman has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I love the discussion 
about school nutrition programs. I have spoken to many superintendents 
in my district who used to run programs in their cafeterias where kids 
would eat the school lunches. Now those once profitable programs are 
not profitable anymore. Some school districts are opting out because of 
the stringent rules and requirements to reduce calories and serve food 
that kids won't eat.
  Let me also, for the Record, Mr. Speaker, state that we are missing 
an important part of any equation in tackling childhood obesity, and 
that is exercise. Illinois, my home State, is the only State in the 
Nation that requires physical education in K-12. Maybe we make that 
part of the debate, too.
  As I wrap up this Special Order, I want to thank everyone, all of my 
colleagues, for coming down and talking about the importance of this 5-
year farm bill. It cannot be said enough that farmers have decided on 
their own to help us save billions in your tax dollars. Twenty billion 
dollars is what the farmers of this country have given up in direct 
payments to really allow us to balance our budget and put a down 
payment on the national debt.
  There are some other crucial aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that 
we don't talk a lot about in the ag sector, but it is about the rules 
and the regulatory process.
  I was happy to introduce an amendment that actually gives the 
Department of Agriculture a seat at the table when those at the EPA 
decide to come up with rules like maybe treating milk spills like oil 
spills from the Exxon Valdez.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question: Which one of those spills could 
be cleaned up with cats? You know the answer and I know the answer, but 
when they come up with crazy ideas like this, we believe that the 
United States Department of Agriculture also deserves a seat at the 
table to say--in a good, commonsense, Midwestern way, Hang on a second 
here. Let's think about this. That is why an amendment like that is 
crucial to a farm bill like this, because it is crazy ideas like that 
that cost our farmers their livelihoods in some cases.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is going to save taxpayers billions. 
It is reforming crucial agricultural programs. It is putting us on a 
path to certainty for America's agricultural future.
  There are some in this body, Mr. Speaker, that believe we shouldn't 
be involved in ag policy in this country. Well, my response to them is: 
Do you want America to be a food exporter, like we are now, or do you 
want to import our food supply?
  We know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. The answer--the solution to 
make sure that doesn't happen--is getting this bill through a quick 
conference committee, bringing it back to the floor of the House, and 
ensuring that all our family farmers and all those who rely upon the ag 
economy for their livelihood are put first.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank everyone who has been involved in 
this process--my staff, many interns that have worked for me to put 
this Special Order in place.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________