[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15717-15722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM 
                    AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the 
reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the 
Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other 
purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, 
insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference requested by 
the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Peterson moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill H.R. 2642 (an Act to provide for the reform and 
     continuation of agricultural and other programs of the 
     Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for 
     other purposes) be instructed to (1) recede to section 1602 
     of the Senate amendment (relating to suspension of permanent 
     price support authority) and (2) recede to the Senate 
     position in title IV of the Senate amendment providing at a 
     minimum a five-year duration of the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program and other nutrition programs.

  Mr. PETERSON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Lucas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This motion contains two instructions for the farm bill conferees. 
One is to support the permanent law provisions in the Senate farm bill 
and what we currently have and have had for years and years. The second 
is to support the Senate position of a 5-year reauthorization of the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  To be clear, this motion keeps intact the longstanding alliance 
needed to pass a strong farm bill.
  America's two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation and the National Farmers Union, both wrote in opposition to 
the House's original consideration of H.R. 2642, the ``farm only'' farm 
bill.
  Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman wrote:

       It is frustrating to our members that this broad coalition 
     of support for passage of the COMPLETE farm bill appears to 
     have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no 
     real stake in this farm bill, the economic vitality and jobs 
     agriculture provides in this country, or for the customers 
     ranchers and farmers serve.

  The Farm Bureau joined a broad coalition of 532 agriculture, 
conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop 
insurance groups that expressed their opposition to splitting the 
nutrition title from the farm bill and urged House leaders to pass a 5-
year farm bill.
  When such a large group of organizations, most with different if not 
conflicting priorities, can come together and agree on something, we 
should listen to them. Doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a 
stake in this bill recommends does not make sense, and it is not the 
way to achieve success, in my opinion.
  I will insert both the Farm Bureau and coalition letters into the 
Record.
  The farm bill's nutrition program needs to be on the same timeline as 
the bill's other provisions. It makes no sense to de-couple farm and 
food programs; they go hand in hand. I worry that separating the two of 
them sets us on a path to no farm bill in the future. The Senate farm 
bill preserves the partnership between farm and food programs, and we 
should defer to that approach.
  As Farmers Union president Roger Johnson wrote:

       Repealing permanent law would remove the element of the 
     bill which would force Congress to act on a piece of 
     legislation that provides a safety net for farmers and 
     ranchers and the food insecure in this country, and protects 
     our Nation's natural resources.

  I will insert the Farmers Union letter into the Record.
  The permanent law provisions are important to ensuring that Congress 
revisits farm programs every 5 years. These are farm laws from 1938 and 
1949 that, if Congress does not pass a new farm bill, would go into 
effect. Actually, because we have not passed a farm bill at this point, 
and it expired on October 1, we actually are operating under permanent 
law right now.
  Obviously, farming has changed a lot since then, and everybody knows 
these programs don't make a lot of sense today, but that's the point of 
permanent law. It is the reason that we work together and we pass a new 
farm bill, because the alternative is not very acceptable.
  Farm bills are traditionally a compromise, and there are things that 
some people like and things that some people don't like. Permanent law 
encourages both groups to work together

[[Page 15718]]

because no one wants to go back to the outdated and unworkable farm 
programs of 1938 and 1949.
  Without these permanent law provisions, it will make it more 
difficult to make changes, improvements, and reforms over time as we 
discover that they are needed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion 
to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                                       National Farmers Union,

                                                    July 11, 2013.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: National Farmers Union (NFU) 
     strongly urges you to vote against the rule and final passage 
     of H.R. 2642, a bill that divorces the nutrition title from 
     the rest of the farm bill and repeals permanent law.
       The two largest general farm organizations in the country 
     have spoken out multiple times in opposition to separating 
     nutrition programs from the farm bill. Splitting the bill is 
     a shortsighted strategy that would effectively undermine the 
     long-standing bipartisan coalition of rural and urban members 
     that have traditionally supported passage of a unified bill. 
     We are also very concerned that including a provision that 
     would repeal permanent law did not receive any outside 
     scrutiny or ability to weigh in through hearings. Repealing 
     permanent law would remove the element in the bill which 
     would force Congress to act on a piece of legislation that 
     provides a safety net for farmers, ranchers, the food 
     insecure and protects our nation's natural resources.
       Last week, NFU led a coalition of 531 other organizations 
     in writing a letter calling for the House of Representatives 
     not to split the bill. This broad-based coalition, composed 
     of agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, 
     forestry, energy and crop insurance companies and 
     organizations is now being undermined by extreme partisan 
     political organizations that do not represent constituents 
     affected by the farm bill.
       Thank you for your consideration of this letter. We urge 
     you to vote against the rule and final passage of H.R. 2642 
     and encourage leadership to bring a unified bill to the floor 
     as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Roger Johnson,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2013.
     The Hon.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep.: The American Farm Bureau Federation is our 
     nation's largest general farm organization, representing more 
     than 6 million member families in all 50 states and Puerto 
     Rico. Our members represent the grassroots farmers and 
     ranchers who produce the wide range of food and fiber crops 
     for our customers here and around the world. To achieve this, 
     farmers and ranchers depend on the variety of programs such 
     as risk management, conservation, credit and rural 
     development contained in H.R. 2642 that is scheduled to be 
     voted on by the full House today.
       Last night the House Rules Committee approved the rule for 
     considering H.R. 2642, which also includes separating the 
     nutrition title from the remaining provisions of H.R. 1947, a 
     complete farm bill that was reported out of the House 
     Agriculture Committee by a 36-10 bipartisan vote.
       We are very disappointed in this action. The ``marriage'' 
     between the nutrition and farm communities and our 
     constituents in developing and adopting comprehensive farm 
     legislation has been an effective, balanced arrangement for 
     decades that has worked to ensure all Americans and the 
     nation benefits. In spite of reports to the contrary, this 
     broad food and farm coalition continues to hold strong 
     against partisan politics. In fact, last week, more than 530 
     groups representing the farm, conservation, credit, rural 
     development and forestry industries urged the House to not 
     split the bill. Similar communications were relayed from the 
     nutrition community. Yet today, in spite of the broad-based 
     bipartisan support for keeping the farm bill intact, you will 
     vote on an approach that seeks to affect a divorce of this 
     longstanding partnership. It is frustrating to our members 
     that this broad coalition of support for passage of a 
     complete farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor 
     of interests that have no real stake in this farm bill, the 
     economic vitality and jobs agriculture provides or the 
     customers farmers and ranchers serve.
       We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition 
     title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill 
     that can be successfully conferenced with the Senate's 
     version, approved by both the House and Senate and signed by 
     the President.
       We are also very much opposed to the repeal of permanent 
     law contained in H.R. 2642. This provision received 
     absolutely no discussion in any of the process leading up to 
     the passage of the bill out of either the House or Senate 
     Agriculture Committees. To replace permanent law governing 
     agricultural programs without hearing from so much as a 
     single witness on what that law should be replaced with is 
     not how good policy is developed.
       As recently as last December, the threat of reverting to 
     permanent law was the critical element that forced Congress 
     to pass an extension of the current farm bill when it proved 
     impossible to complete action on the new five-year farm 
     bill--an action that not only provided important safety net 
     programs for this year, it ensured Congress would have time 
     this year to consider comprehensive reforms that contribute 
     billions to deficit reduction.
       We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against 
     final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end 
     permanent law provisions for agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     July 2, 2013.
     The Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, H-232 The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: America's agriculture, conservation, 
     rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop 
     insurance companies and organizations strongly urge you to 
     bring the Farm Bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) back to the Floor as 
     soon as possible. This important legislation supports our 
     nation's farmers, ranchers, forest owners, food security, 
     natural resources and wildlife habitats, rural communities, 
     and the 16 million Americans whose jobs directly depend on 
     the agriculture industry.
       Farm bills represent a delicate balance between America's 
     farm, nutrition, conservation, and other priorities, and 
     accordingly require strong bipartisan support. It is vital 
     for the House to try once again to bring together a broad 
     coalition of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to 
     provide certainty for farmers, rural America, the environment 
     and our economy in general and pass a five-year farm bill 
     upon returning in July. We believe that splitting the 
     nutrition title from the rest of the bill could result in 
     neither farm nor nutrition programs passing, and urge you to 
     move a unified farm bill forward.
       Thank you for your support. We look forward to our 
     continued dialogue as the process moves forward and stand 
     ready to work with you to complete passage of the new five-
     year Farm Bill before the current law expires again on 
     September 30, 2013.
           Sincerely,
       1st Farm Credit Services, Advanced Biofuels Association, Ag 
     Credit, ACA, AgChoice, AgGeorgia, AgHeritage Farm Credit 
     Services, AgriBank, Agriculture Council of Arkansas, 
     Agriculture Energy Coalition, Agricultural Retailers 
     Association, AgriLand, Agri-Mark, Inc., AgCarolina, 
     AgCountry, AgFirst, AgPreference, AgSouth, AgStar Financial 
     Services, ACA, AgTexas, Alabama Ag Credit, Alabama Cotton 
     Commission, Alabama Dairy Producers, Alabama Farm Credit, 
     Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Alabama Farmers Federation.
       Alabama Pork Producers, Alaska Farmers Union, American 
     AgCredit, American Agriculture Movement, American Association 
     of Avian Pathologists, American Association of Bovine 
     Practitioners, American Association of Crop Insurers, 
     American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners, 
     American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, 
     American Bankers Association, American Beekeeping Federation, 
     American Biogas Council, American Coalition for Ethanol, 
     American Cotton Shippers Association, American Crystal Sugar 
     Company, American Dairy Science Association, American Farm 
     Bureau Federation, American Farmers and Ranchers Mutual 
     Insurance Company, American Farmland Trust, American Feed 
     Industry Association, American Fruit and Vegetable Processors 
     and Growers Coalition, American Forest Foundation, American 
     Forest Resource Council, American Forests, American Honey 
     Producers Association.
       American Malting Barley Association, American Pulse 
     Association, American Public Works Association, American 
     Sheep Industry Association, American Society of Agronomy, 
     American Sugar Alliance, American Sugar Cane League, American 
     Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Society of Farm 
     Managers and Rural Appraisers, American Soybean Association, 
     American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Agriculture 
     Coalition, Animal Health Institute, WAArborOne, Archery Trade 
     Association, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona 
     BioIndustry Association, Arizona Wool Producers Association, 
     Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Farmers Union, Arkansas Rice 
     Federation, Arkansas Rice Producers' Group, Arkansas State 
     Sheep Council, Associated Logging Contractors--Idaho, 
     Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
       Associated Oregon Loggers, Association of American 
     Veterinary Medical Colleges, Association of Equipment 
     Manufacturers, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 
     Association of Veterinary Biologics Companies, Badgerland 
     Financial, Bio Nebraska Life Sciences Association, 
     BioForward, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Black Hills 
     Forest Resource Association, Bongard's Creamery, Boone and 
     Crockett Club,

[[Page 15719]]

     Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Calcot, California 
     Agricultural Irrigation Association, California Association 
     of Resource Conservation Districts, California Association of 
     Winegrape Growers, California Avocado Commission, California 
     Canning Peach Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, 
     California Farmers Union, California Forestry Association, 
     California Pork Producers Association, California Wool 
     Growers Association, Calvin Viator, Ph.D. and Associates, 
     LLC.
       The Campbell Group, Can Manufacturers Institute, Canned 
     Food Alliance, Cape Fear Farm Credit, Capital Farm Credit, 
     Carolina Cotton Growers Cooperative, Catch-A-Dream 
     Foundation, Catfish Farmers of America, Central Kentucky, 
     ACA, Ceres Solutions LLP, Chrisholm Trail Farm Credit, CHS, 
     Inc., CoBank, Colonial Farm Credit, Colorado BioScience 
     Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Timber Industry 
     Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, 
     Connecticut Forest & Park Association, Connecticut United for 
     Research Excellence, Inc., The Conservation Fund, Continental 
     Dairy Products, Inc, Cooperative Credit Company, Cooperative 
     Network, Cora-Texas Mfg. Co., Inc.
       Corn Producers Association of Texas, Cotton Growers 
     Warehouse Association, Council for Agricultural Science and 
     Technology, Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, Crop 
     Insurance Professionals Association, Crop Science Society of 
     America, CropLife America, Dairy Farmers of America, Dairy 
     Farmers Working Together, Dairy Producers of Utah, Dairylea 
     Cooperative Inc., Darigold, Inc, Delta Council, Delta 
     Waterfowl, Deltic Timber Corporation, Ducks Unlimited, DUDA 
     (A. Duda & Sons, Inc.), Eastern Regional Conference of 
     Council of State Governments, Empire State Forest Products 
     Association, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 
     Environmental Law & Policy Center, Family Farm Alliance, 
     Family Forest Foundation--Washington, Farm Credit Bank of 
     Texas, Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation.
       Farm Credit Council, Farm Credit Council Services, Farm 
     Credit East, Farm Credit MidSouth, Farm Credit of Central 
     Florida, Farm Credit of Central Oklahoma, Farm Credit of 
     Enid, Farm Credit of Florida, Farm Credit of Maine, Farm 
     Credit of Ness City, Farm Credit of New Mexico, Farm Credit 
     of North West Florida, Farm Credit of Southern Colorado, Farm 
     Credit of SW Kansas, Farm Credit of Western Arkansas, Farm 
     Credit of Western Kansas, Farm Credit of Western Oklahoma, 
     Farm Credit Services of America, Farm Credit Services of 
     Illinois, Farm Credit South, Farm Credit Virginias, Farm 
     Credit West, Farmer Mac, FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative, FCS 
     Financial.
       FCS of America, FCS of Colusa-Glenn, FCS of East/Central 
     Oklahoma, FCS of Hawaii, FCS of Illinois, FCS of Mandan, FCS 
     of Mid-America, FCS of North Dakota, FCS of Southwest, 
     Federation of Animal Science Societies, First District 
     Association, First FCS, First South Farm Credit, FLBA of 
     Kingsburg, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Florida 
     Sugar Cane League, Forest Investment Associates, Forest 
     Landowners Association, Forest Products National Labor 
     Management Committee, Forest Resource Association Inc., 
     Fresno-Madera Farm Credit, Frontier Farm Credit, Fruit 
     Growers Supply Company, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Georgia 
     Farm Bureau Federation, Georgia Forestry Association.
       Georgia Pork Producers Association, Giustina Resources, 
     LLC, Global Forest Partners LP, GMO Renewable Resources, 
     Great Plains Ag Credit, Great Plains Canola Association, 
     Green Diamond Resource Company, Greenstone, GROWMARK, Inc, 
     Growth Energy, Hancock Timber Resource Group, Hardwood 
     Federation, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Sugar Farmers, 
     Heritage Land Bank, Holstein Association USA, Idaho Ag 
     Credit, Idaho Dairymen's Association, Idaho Farmers Union, 
     Idaho Forest Group, Idaho Forest Owners Association, Idaho 
     Grain Producers Association, Illinois Biotechnology Industry 
     Organization--iBIO, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Farmers 
     Union.
       Illinois Pork Producers Association, Independent Beef 
     Association of North Dakota, Independent Community Bankers of 
     America, Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc., Indiana Farmers Union, 
     Indiana Health Industry Forum, Innovative Mississippi--
     Strategic Biomass Solutions, Intermountain Forest 
     Association, Intertribal Agriculture Council, Iowa Farm 
     Bureau Federation, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Pork Producers 
     Association, Iowa Sheep Industry Association, IowaBio, 
     Irrigation Association, Irving Woodlands, LLC, Izaak Walton 
     League of America, John Deere Crop Insurance, Kansas 
     Cooperative Council, Kansas Dairy, Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas 
     Farmers Union, Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association, 
     Kansas Pork Association, Kansas Sheep Association.
       Kentucky Forest Industries Association, Kentucky Pork 
     Producers Association, Land Improvement Contractors of 
     America, Land O'Lakes, Land Stewardship Project, Land Trust 
     Alliance, Lone Rock Timber Management Co., Longview Timber 
     LLC, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Louisiana Forest 
     Association, Louisiana Rice Growers Association, Louisiana 
     Rice Producers' Group, Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative, 
     Inc., Lula-Westfield, LLC, Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers 
     Cooperative, Maryland Association of Soil Conservation 
     Districts, Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Maryland Grain 
     Producers Association, Maryland Sheep Breeders' Association, 
     Inc., Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 
     Massachusetts Forest Alliance, MassBio, MBG Marketing/The 
     Blueberry People, Michigan Agri-Business Association, 
     Michigan Farm Bureau.
       Michigan Farmers Union, Michigan Pork Producers 
     Association, Michigan Sugar Company, Michigan-California 
     Timber Company, Mid-West Dairymen's Co., MidAtlantic Farm 
     Credit, Midwest Dairy Coalition, Midwest Environmental 
     Advocates, Midwest Food Processors Association, Milk 
     Producers Council, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, Minnesota 
     Canola Council, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota 
     Farm Bureau Federation, Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota 
     Forest Industries, Minnesota Grain & Feed Association, 
     Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers, Minnesota Pork Producers 
     Association, Minnesota Timber Producers Association, 
     Mississippi River Trust, Missouri Coalition for the 
     Environment, Missouri Dairy Association, Missouri Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Missouri Farmers Union.
       Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Sheep Producers, 
     Missouri Soybean Association, The Molpus Woodlands Group, 
     Montana Grain Growers Association, Montana Farmers Union, 
     Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Counties, 
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 
     National All-Jersey, National Alliance of Forest Owners, 
     National Association for the Advancement of Animal Science, 
     National Association of Clean Water Agencies, National 
     Association of Conservation Districts, National Association 
     of Farmer Elected Committees, National Association of Federal 
     Veterinarians, National Association of Forest Service 
     Retirees, National Association of FSA County Office 
     Employees, National Association of Resource Conservation & 
     Development Councils, National Association of State 
     Conservation Agencies, National Association of State 
     Foresters, National Association of University Forest Resource 
     Programs, National Association of Wheat Growers, National 
     Barley Growers Association, National Bobwhite Conservation 
     Initiative.
       National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Coalition 
     for Food and Agricultural Research, National Conservation 
     District Employees Association, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Cotton Council, National Cotton 
     Ginners' Association, National Council of Farmer 
     Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Farm to School 
     Network, National Grange, National Grape Cooperative 
     Association, Inc., National Milk Producers Federation, 
     National Network of Forest Practitioners, National Pork 
     Producers Council, National Renderers Association, National 
     Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Sorghum 
     Producers, National Sunflower Association, National Trappers 
     Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, National 
     Woodland Owners Association, Nebraska Cooperative Council, 
     Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, Nebraska Farmers Union, 
     Nebraska Pork Producers Association.
       Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, Nevada Wool Growers 
     Association, New England Farmers Union, New Jersey Farm 
     Bureau, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico 
     Sorghum Association, New York Farm Bureau, Inc., New York 
     Forest Owners Association, Nexsteppe, North American Grouse 
     Partnership, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc, 
     North Carolina Forestry Association, North Carolina Pork 
     Council, North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Lamb & Wool 
     Producers, North Dakota Pork Producers Council, Northarvest 
     Bean Growers Association, Northeast Dairy Farmers 
     Cooperatives, Northeast States Association for Agricultural 
     Stewardship, Northern California Farm Credit, Northern Canola 
     Growers Association, Northern Forest Center, Northern Pulse 
     Growers Association, Northwest Dairy Association, Northwest 
     Farm Credit Services.
       Novozymes North America Inc, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 
     Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio 
     Pork Producers Council, Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers 
     Association, Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council, 
     Oklahoma Farmers Union, Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association, 
     Oklahoma Pork Council, Oklahoma Seed Trade Association, 
     Oklahoma Sorghum Association, Oklahoma Wheat Growers 
     Association, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Oregon Cherry 
     Growers, Inc., Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Oregon 
     Farmers Union, Oregon Sheep Growers Association, Oregon Small 
     Woodland Association, Oregon Women in Timber, Orion the 
     Hunter's Institute, Panhandle-Plains Land Bank, Partners for 
     Sustainable Pollination, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, 
     Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
       Pennsylvania Forest Products Association, Pheasants 
     Forever, Plains Cotton Cooperative Association, Plains Cotton 
     Growers, Inc., Plum Creek Timber Company, Pollinator 
     Partnership, Pope and Young Club, Port Blakely Tree Farms, 
     LP, Potlatch Corporation, Prairie Rivers Network, Premier

[[Page 15720]]

     Farm Credit, Puerto Rico Farm Credit, Quality Deer Management 
     Association, Quail Forever, Rayonier Inc., Red Gold, Inc, Red 
     River Forests, LLC, Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers 
     Association, Renewable Fuels Association, Resource Management 
     Service, LLC, Rhode Island Sheep Cooperative, Rio Grande 
     Valley Sugar Growers, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Rolling 
     Plains Cotton Growers, Inc., Ruffed Grouse Society.
       The Rural Broadband Association, Rural Community Assistance 
     Partnership, Select Milk Producers, Inc., Seneca Foods, 
     Shasta Forests Timberlands, LLC, Sidney Sugars, Inc., Sierra 
     Pacific Industries, Society of American Foresters, Soil and 
     Water Conservation Society, Soil Science Society of America, 
     South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, South Dakota 
     Association of Cooperatives, South Dakota Biotech 
     Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, South Dakota Pork 
     Producers, South Dakota Wheat Growers, South East Dairy 
     Farmers Association, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers 
     Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain Association, 
     Southeast Milk Inc., Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern 
     Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, Southern Peanut Farmers 
     Federation, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton Growers 
     Association of Texas.
       Southern States Cooperative, Inc., Southwest Council of 
     Agribusiness, Southwest Georgia Farm Credit, St. Albans 
     Cooperative, Staplcotn, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders, 
     Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Sustainable Forest 
     Initiative, Sustainable Northwest, Tennessee Clean Water 
     Network, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, Tennessee Forestry 
     Association, Tennessee Renewable Energy & Economic 
     Development Council, Texas Ag Finance, Texas Agricultural 
     Cooperative Council, Texas Farmers Union, Texas Forestry 
     Association, Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute, Texas 
     Land Bank, Texas Pork Producers Association, Texas Rice 
     Producers Legislative Group, Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers' 
     Association, Timberland Investment Resources, Timber Products 
     Company, The Amalgamated Sugar Company.
       The Bank of Commerce, The Nature Conservancy, The Small 
     Woodland Owners Association of Maine, Theodore Roosevelt 
     Conservation Partnership, Trust for Public Land, United 
     Dairymen of Arizona, United FCS, U.S. Animal Health 
     Association, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola 
     Association, U.S. Cattlemen's Association, U.S. Dry Bean 
     Council, U.S. Pea & Lentil Trade Association, U.S. Rice 
     Producers Association, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, USA Dry Pea 
     & Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, Utah Farmers Union, 
     Utah Wool Growers Association, Virginia Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Virginia Forestry Association, Virginia Grain 
     Producers Association, Virginia Pork Industry Board, Virginia 
     Nursery & Landscape Association, Virginia State Dairymen's 
     Association.
       Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association, 
     Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Farmers Union, Washington 
     State Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington State Dairy 
     Federation, Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative, Wells Timberland 
     REIT, Western AgCredit, Western Growers, Western Pea & Lentil 
     Growers, Western Peanut Growers Association, Western 
     Pennsylvania Conservancy, Western Sugar Cooperative, Western 
     United Dairymen, The Westervelt Company, Weyerhaeuser 
     Company, Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., Wild Sheep Foundation, 
     Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, Wildlife 
     Mississippi, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, Wisconsin 
     Farmers Union, Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Pork 
     Association, Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association, Women 
     Involved in Farm Economics, World Wildlife Fund, Wyoming 
     Sugar Company, Yankee Farm Credit, Yosemite Farm Credit.

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so overjoyed to rise today to be at this point in 
the farm bill process, where we are on the verge of sitting down with 
our friends in the other body and beginning to put the final bill 
together. This has been a long and challenging process for both myself, 
the ranking member Mr. Peterson, and all members of the House 
Agriculture Committee.
  We have touched on many subject matters. We have had the most amazing 
open markups in committee, with amendments almost beyond galore. Twice 
we have been across the floor of this great body in, essentially, an 
open process, considering literally 100-plus amendments almost every 
time it seems.
  From that process we are now, with a product, ready to go to 
conference with the other body. This motion, and the next two sense of 
Congress resolutions, address several things that were decided on the 
floor of this House.
  While I appreciate mightily the opportunity to reassess the judgments 
of the body, I would just simply say this, looking at the various 
points: my good friend the ranking member is exactly right. This motion 
would restore 1938 and 1949 law as the permanent base farm bill.
  Franklin Roosevelt was President, of course, when the 1938 law was 
signed into place. President Truman signed the 1949 law into place. 
Those laws were designed at a time when I suspect the average tractor 
was 55 horsepower. I suppose the average dairy might have been 40 cows.
  They were put in place on the assumptions of parity and production 
controls and allotments and production history, a lot of things that 
have long since faded away in subsequent farm bills.
  I know my friend and a number of groups, in good faith, advocate that 
we keep that 1938 and 1949 law in place. But I would suggest to my 
colleagues, the open process we have been through, the open process we 
are about to have in conference, if we can come up with good language 
that a majority of both bodies can agree on, that a fellow down at the 
White House will sign if it is good policy, maybe the conference should 
be given the option, as is now the case within the farm bill language, 
of using the 2013 farm bill as base.
  The Senate retains the old permanent law from 1938 and 1949. At 
present, we don't do that in the House draft, so we have got the 
ability to discuss it. We have got the ability to work on it. I, 
personally, think that's a good thing.
  Now, the other portion of this motion, and this reflects, again, some 
very serious, sincere differences of opinion, both in committee and on 
the floor, about how to address the fundamental nature of the nutrition 
title. This House decided that the reauthorization should be for 3 
years instead of what would be the more traditional concurrent 
authorization with the rest of the farm bill. I think every Member has 
to vote their own conscience on that issue.
  But, understand: the motion, as structured, would take away the 
potential option for moving permanent law from the Roosevelt-Truman 
administration to the present day, and it would also restore that 5-
year authorization on nutrition programs, things my colleagues have to 
take into consideration and factor.
  Mr. Speaker, I note to my colleague I am my only speaker on this 
issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), one of our subcommittee ranking members.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, as well 
as the chair from Oklahoma.
  I rise to support this motion to instruct, and let me tell you why.
  The farm bill traditionally, around this place, has been one of the 
most bipartisan efforts that we engage in. Unfortunately, for over the 
last year, it hasn't seemed that way.
  I think that the importance of maintaining the permanent law of 1938 
and 1949 is not to suggest that farming today is as it was then. Of 
course it is not.
  But the fact is that it has always provided, in the past efforts, 
back in 2008, and back in the last three or four decades, the sort of 
incentive necessary to come together, in a bipartisan fashion, to put 
together a bill that reflects not just current farming needs throughout 
this great country of ours today, but also to focus on the necessary 
importance of the nutrition programs that go to so many of those in our 
society that are in need.
  Now, that brings me to the second point that is reflected in the 
Senate measure, that is reflected in this motion to instruct, and that 
is, bifurcating the nutrition programs. It makes absolutely no sense.
  There has been a tradition here that I think has worked well in 
maintaining the incredible amount of cornucopia of food that we produce 
in this Nation and also never forgetting those in our society who are 
most in need. That marriage between the nutrition programs, which have 
benefited from the food that our farmers and ranchers and dairymen 
produce, and those who need a helping hand has worked well.
  So, therefore, why should we separate it?

[[Page 15721]]

  Why should we have a 3-year nutrition program instead of the 5-year 
that marries and complements the ongoing farm programs?
  So, for all of those reasons, I support this motion to instruct.
  And let me finally say, the time has come. The time has come to put 
away the posturing, go to work, go to conference, and pass a farm bill 
that reflects America's needs.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), one of our subcommittee ranking 
members.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the FARRM Act, which is H.R. 2642, reauthorizes Federal 
farm, rural development, and agricultural trade programs through fiscal 
year 2018, or 5 years.
  However, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act, 
which passed last month, reauthorized nutrition programs for only 3 
years. This separation is problematic, and it needs to be addressed.
  Farming and feeding go hand in hand, and a comprehensive farm bill 
recognizes this connection. We can restore this connection by ensuring 
a 5-year reauthorization for all programs that come under the farm 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the link between nutrition and farm 
communities. Support a farm bill that meets the nutritional needs of 
all Americans.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion and 
thank the ranking member for his work. Reauthorizing nutrition programs 
for 5 years is sound policy and the right thing to do.
  The farm bill has always been built on a successful coalition of 
rural and urban communities and Members of Congress who come together 
in a bipartisan way to create responsible farm and food policy.
  By authorizing farm policies for 5 years, but only extending 
nutrition programs for 3 years, we are leaving millions of working 
families, seniors, and children with great uncertainty when they need 
our help the most.
  Let's be honest. Changing the authorization for nutrition programs 
reduces the likelihood of Congress passing a bipartisan farm bill that 
works for our farmers, food producers, and families. So, too, does 
repealing permanent farm law, as the current House bill does.
  For the last 2 years, Congress has failed to act. Why are we making 
it even harder to pass a final farm bill?
  SNAP helps nearly 47 million Americans, including over 22,000 in my 
district, afford nutritious food and not go hungry. It has proven to be 
efficient and effective with error rates at historic lows. It helps 
Americans at every district across the country by preventing them from 
falling into poverty and lifting them up through job training and 
education programs.
  I am proud that I was able to include a SNAP employment and training 
pilot program modeled after a program from my home State of Washington 
in the nutrition bill that will go to conference.
  Even at the height of the recession, 60 percent of those in 
Washington's programs found employment, and more than half were off 
assistance in 2 years. This is a commonsense policy to increase 
education and job training while decreasing the number of people who 
need SNAP.
  This bill has been hijacked long enough. Let's get back to the 
bipartisan, cooperative process in which the House Agriculture 
Committee drafted the farm bill. Let's not make things more difficult 
than they need to be.
  We were sent here to do our jobs, to govern and pass policies that 
will grow our economy, and it is no secret that Congress has been 
failing at fulfilling this basic responsibility.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to authorize both farm 
and nutrition programs for the full 5 years. Let's get to work and pass 
a 5-year farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a new member of the committee--
well, an old member. He was a member of the Ag Committee back in the 
1970s.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the work that has been 
done here in this bill. I want to commend Chairman Lucas and Ranking 
Member Collin Peterson for the tireless work that you and your staffs 
and your subcommittee chairs put into writing this legislation. It is 
the product of many years and a wealth of experience that has brought 
consumers and producers together, that has brought urban and rural 
people together, and that has produced an abundant supply of food for 
people here in this country and all over the world.
  American agriculture is just absolutely one of the wonders of the 
world. I believe that this motion helps to keep that great success and 
progress moving forward.
  Last but not least, I want to say how refreshing it was to be part of 
that committee markup. As you know, I was on a 32-year hiatus--the 
longest in history.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NOLAN. I have been asked time and time again how things are 
different from the way they were then. Believe me, there are a lot of 
differences, big and small; but one of the most refreshing things was 
to be a part of that Ag Committee open, bipartisan, free-wheeling 
markup, where anybody and everybody got their moment, got an 
opportunity to offer their resolution, got an opportunity to have a 
vote on it.
  I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind of spirit. That is the 
kind of spirit that has moved this country and accounted for so much of 
our great success over the years.
  I urge adoption of this motion.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
instruct the conference committee to reauthorize America's nutrition 
and antihunger programs for 5 years.
  At the moment, the majority's farm bill extends crop insurance and 
other agricultural programs for 5 years, but the nutrition portion only 
reauthorizes food stamps and other programs for 3 years. This 2-year 
discrepancy would allow for all kinds of shenanigans the next time 
these programs are up for debate. We should stop that from happening 
now.
  When this majority severed the nutrition title from the farm bill, 
they broke a longstanding bipartisan compact on antihunger initiatives 
that goes back decades, connecting the programs that help farmers 
produce and the programs that help poor families escape hunger. This 
arrangement separates farm programs from nutrition programs on a 
permanent basis. They break the coalition that supports this bill. 
Quite honestly, it is being done to put food stamps at risk. Indeed, 
this is a shell game.
  The critical antihunger programs have been supported by Republicans 
and Democrats all across the country--the east coast, the west coast, 
the heartland--because hunger is not a partisan issue. We all have a 
vested interest in ending hunger in our country. But with this farm 
bill, the House Republican majority has betrayed this fight. By cruelly 
cutting $40 billion from food stamps, our most important antihunger 
program, they are telling over 4 million of our most vulnerable 
citizens--children, seniors, veterans, the disabled--you may not know 
where your next meal is coming from.
  The majority is making this $40 billion cut, robbing poor families of 
food, even while continuing to dole out over twice as much--$90 
billion--in crop insurance subsidies, taxpayer dollars, to some of the 
Nation's wealthiest families and agribusiness.
  In the Crop Insurance Program, there are no income eligibility 
requirements.

[[Page 15722]]

You can be a billionaire and still collect the subsidy. In the food 
stamp program, you can only make up to $23,000. With that, you can only 
spend almost $1.50 on a meal. That's the inequity we are talking about 
here.
  There should be a condemnation of what that House majority is trying 
to do to hunger and nutrition programs--and there is. It has been near 
universal. Nutrition, agriculture, homeless, seniors, education, and 
health care organizations--even Republican leaders like former 
Republican Senator Bob Dole--all have announced their opposition to 
this reckless and extreme plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let us understand what the cuts to nutrition programs 
that the majority is suggesting mean in terms of our children.
  Roughly 20 percent of these households that receive the benefits have 
children under the age of 18; 23 percent have children that are 4 years 
old and under. The damage that hunger does to children is irreparable. 
If they go to school hungry, they cannot learn; and if they cannot 
learn, they cannot succeed.
  I only ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the data. 
Read the report in The Lancet journal just in the last week or so that 
tells you what the scientific data is that shows what the impact of 
hunger is on children's brains and their ability to learn.
  We know that the learning period for children is from zero to 3. Why 
would we want to do irreparable harm to the children in this Nation by 
cutting off food, of which the United States has a great abundance--and 
overabundance--and yet we want to cut $40 billion from the food stamp 
program? It is reckless and it is extreme.
  I just say to my colleagues, if the farm programs are being 
reauthorized for 5 years, the nutrition programs should be reauthorized 
for 5 years, just like they have in the past, with that coalition that 
is coming from all over the country, region by region, Democrats and 
Republicans, in one unified farm bill. I urge my colleagues to go in 
that direction.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the remarks of our colleague from 
Connecticut.
  The SNAP program is in jeopardy, which means children's health is in 
jeopardy, and we should extend the ARRA-created benefits as well as to 
fully fund, not cut, the SNAP program.
  My colleague referred to the article this past week in The Lancet, 
the prominent medical journal. Allow me to quote from that.

       Many studies have shown positive associations between 
     receipt of SNAP . . . and a lower risk of anemia, obesity, 
     poor health, hospital admission for failure to thrive, and 
     reports of child abuse and neglect. Children aged 5-9 years 
     of SNAP-participating families have better academic outcomes 
     and less obesity than children in nonparticipating families.
       Between 1961 and 1975, the program was implemented county 
     by county, thus, allowing for comparison across counties that 
     differed only by SNAP availability. In SNAP-available 
     counties there was . . . a significant increase . . . in mean 
     birthweight for both Black and White Americans, compared with 
     those counties where SNAP was not available.

  As the Speaker knows, that is an important measure associated with 
infant health.

       Children of low-income women in SNAP-available counties 
     were less likely to have metabolic syndrome [ill health such 
     as diabetes] in adulthood, and women who had received food 
     stamps during early childhood were more likely to be 
     economically self-sufficient.

  These are children who had the benefits of SNAP. As adults, they were 
healthier. This seems, to me, to be a very important point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOLT. The societal benefits of food stamps extend far beyond a 
temporary reduction of hunger pangs. The benefits last for years--even 
into the next generation. Why on Earth would we consider reducing 
support for such an important humane and, yes, economically beneficial 
program?
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note to my colleagues that many of the points of great merit 
offered over the course of the discussion of this motion were points 
debated and discussed on the floor and in committee. I respect the 
sincerity of all of my colleagues, but we need to remember this motion 
has two key central points:
  Number one, the 1938 and 1949 law remain permanent. We take away the 
conference's ability to negotiate that point with the United States 
Senate. Take it away, take it off the table is the goal of this motion 
to instruct.
  The second point, of course, deals with the authorization on SNAP. 
Should it be 3 years? Should it be 5 years? That is the question you 
have to decide in this motion. Do you take away the House's ability to 
have the option of making whatever we can all agree on permanent law? 
Do you insist that we continue to have the food program, SNAP, run 
concurrently with the rest of the farm bill? It's a very simple set of 
issues to consider.
  From my own perspective, I would ask the House to allow the 
conference committee as much flexibility as possible in negotiating 
with the other body--as much flexibility as possible--and that would 
require rejecting the motion to instruct.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. I look forward to the joys of hopefully not 
quite as challenging a conference as this first 2 years of this process 
has been but, nonetheless, an acknowledgment that we need to get our 
work done in a timely fashion and bring a product back that a majority 
of this body can accept and support.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I just say that we have had a way to deal 
with this for the last 40-some years that has worked pretty well. I 
think it is a big mistake, as most groups that are involved in the farm 
bill feel it is a mistake, to eliminate permanent law and to have a 
situation where one part of the bill is authorized for a different 
length of time than the other. People that have been involved in this 
for a long time think this is a mistake. I think it is a mistake.
  I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I yield 
back the balance my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________