Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the service of Arkansas State University Agricultural Economics Professor Dr. Bert Greenwalt.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Arkansas State University Agribusiness Conference, which Dr. Greenwalt has faithfully directed the past two decades. This premier agribusiness conference gathers attendees from across the country to focus on global agriculture, farm policy, commodity market outlooks, and biofuel research.

While maintaining a global focus, Dr. Greenwalt also manages to make the conference pertinent to Arkansas' agricultural producers, regularly bringing State ag leaders and university alumni to the event.

While attending Arkansas State University myself, I had the privilege of having Dr. Greenwalt as an ag policy professor, where I developed the skills necessary to serve on the Agriculture Committee in this body. Each day serving Arkansas' First District, I experience the same kinds of concepts and examples I learned in Dr. Greenwalt's classroom.

Mr. Speaker, please join me and the entire Arkansas State University community in honoring the service of Dr. Bert Greenwalt.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I consume.

My amendment will provide a limited exemption related to the taking of migratory game birds over farm fields. In short, it clarifies a recent interpretation by the Fish and Wildlife Service about what constitutes a ``baited field.''

In 2012, the agency warned rice growers that some of their fields that had been rolled--as farmer often do after the harvest to prepare the field to be planted the next spring--could be off limits to waterfowl hunting. That summer's drought led to an early rice harvest in several parts of the country, and heavy rainfall then caused a rare secondary ``ratoon'' crop to sprout. The Fish and Wildlife Service cautioned that should rice heads emerge in those fields, their guidelines stated that any field work, such as rolling, would make it a baited field where waterfowl hunting would be unlawful.

Waterfowl hunting is a vital industry in my State. Hunters come from the world over to Arkansas' First District, and farmers, small businesses, and the rural communities that dot the delta all rely on the millions of dollars hunters bring with them every year.

My amendment is a commonsense solution that simply states that a field may not be considered baited as the result of normal agricultural practices, as determined by the State Office of the Cooperative Extension Service at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence from that State's Fish and Wildlife Service.

I ask for your support for this important amendment that will protect farmers from being punished for simply carrying out long-recognized and responsible agricultural practices.

With that, I yield to the chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for putting in so much hard work and dedication and getting where we are today, and I echo the ranking member's sentiments to the staff. Thank you very much for everything that you have done.

After more than 3 years of being involved in the farm bill process, I am proud to support a final product that not only greatly benefits producers but deploys investments and jobs to rural America. Despite our sharp regional differences, we prevailed in crafting commodity programs that promote regional fairness by providing a strong safety net that protects all producers from market risk.

We can finally provide relief to our cattlemen by permanently reauthorizing disaster assistance programs after years of hardship. Rural development funding will bring critical investments to our rural communities, while conservation and forestry programs will preserve our natural resources for years to come.

While I am pleased with the farm bill before us today, I am disappointed that we left some important issues on the table like reforming harmful GIPSA regulations and fixing Country of Origin Labeling for the meat industry.

We could have gone further in relieving burdensome EPA regulations on small farmers, and I believe that the environmental activists in the Senate had far too much input.

Even though I believe we could have done more, I am proud of the conservative reforms we made to the food stamp program by eliminating waste and loopholes, setting the stage for work requirements. The Agriculture Committee accomplished the tough goal of cutting billions from our budget by repealing or consolidating dozens of programs.

I appreciate the patience of all of our Arkansas producers and rural communities through this process.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this farm bill conference report.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the 50th anniversary of my good friends and fellow Arkansans, Benny and Nelda Speaks.

Benny and Nelda first met in Mountain Home, Arkansas, Benny fresh out of the Navy, Nelda having returned home from business college in Springfield, Missouri.

They were married on December 6, 1963. They have one daughter, Ladonnia Speaks Moranz; two grandchildren, Natosha and Brandon; and were blessed with one great-grandson, Logan.

Madam Speaker, it is no easy task making it to the 50-year anniversary. It takes great commitment, a willingness to compromise and to listen, and a loving spirit. These qualities embody the relationship of the Speakses' marriage, serving as a testament and example to the rest of us.

The Speakses are involved community leaders who truly care about Arkansas and have devoted much of their time and effort giving back to their community.

I thank the Speakses for their friendship over the years, and I am so glad to be able to wish them a happy 50th wedding anniversary this December 6.

Mr. Speaker, the Mershon family of Gassville, Arkansas, is yet another tragic example of the terrible toll the ObamaCare law is taking on the American people. Small business owners and young parents, this couple has never asked their government for anything more than just to let them make a good life for their kids. Here are their words:

We regret to inform you that we have lost our health care

coverage. It was not ObamaCare compliant. Granted, it wasn't

Cadillac-style insurance, but it was all we needed. So we go

to the Web site. ``Sticker shock'' does not begin to cover

how we felt. This is an absolute outrage. We counted on what

was assured to us, promised to us--that our insurance would

stay intact, period. Our shoestring budget has now turned to

floss. Seriously, it is beans and cornbread time.

Mr. Speaker, a politically motivated administrative fix does nothing to solve the underlying issues with this disastrous law. Sadly, it looks like it may be beans and cornbread time for millions of families across our country. Is this really the affordable care we were promised?

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the intent of section 716 to reduce risk in the financial system, it does exactly the opposite. It creates more risk, and it places an undue burden on financial institutions for conducting legitimate hedging activities. This legislation would take an important step to ensure that Dodd-Frank is living up to its goal to reduce systemic risk, a goal on which both parties agree.

Even former Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank--the namesake of the bill in question--endorsed this bill last Congress, saying that it will not in any way, shape, or form reduce sensible regulation in derivatives. I rarely agreed with Congressman Frank, but I certainly share the goal of regulating the financial system in a sensible way, and I think that is the key.

H.R. 992 would prevent financial institutions from forcing their derivatives business outside the banking structure to an entity that is far less regulated than the bank. So, while some may believe that section 716 provides more regulation, they are mistaken. Again, it is the other way around. All we are asking is to allow financial institutions to mitigate their risks so we can have a stronger banking system.

A stronger financial system makes America more competitive economically; it creates jobs; and it provides stability for the consumer. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in August, the explosive ordnance disposal community lost one of its best and brightest. Staff Sergeant Joshua Bowden of Villa Rica, Georgia, was killed in action on August 31, 2013, at the age of 28, while serving his country in Afghanistan.

Staff Sergeant Bowden joined the United States Army in 2005 and was on his second deployment to Afghanistan. His awards included the Joint Service Commendation Medal with Valor, Purple Heart, Joint Defense Meritorious Service Medal, NATO Medal, Combat Action Badge, Senior Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge, Parachutist Badge, and the Air Assault Badge.

As cochairman of the House EOD Caucus, along with Congresswoman Susan Davis, I was honored to meet Staff Sergeant Bowden in 2011 during our caucus' first annual EOD Day on the Hill. The purpose of this event was to educate Members and staff about the

critical mission EOD forces play in defending American interests, both at home and abroad. Staff Sergeant Bowden was a patriot who was willing to put himself in the line of fire to defend our country's way of life, and I am proud to have met him.

In September, Staff Sergeant Bowden was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. It is important that we regularly take time to reflect on the sacrifices made by our Nation's servicemen and -women and the veterans who preceded them.

I am honored to have met Staff Sergeant Joshua Bowden, and my thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to ask this simple question to my colleagues here in the House and to our counterparts in the Senate, and that is simply this: Does it make sense for us to speed ahead with $1.3 trillion in new entitlement spending when our country is in the middle of a debt crisis and Medicare and Social Security are on the brink of bankruptcy?

If the answer is ``yes,'' then you can go home and explain that to your constituents. If the answer is ``no,'' maybe we could explain why we are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring two very contrasting perspectives to the floor with regard to health care. One of them starts with an individual that we are all familiar with, and when he talks, people listen.

On March 1, 2010, Warren Buffett said:

I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs

in regard to health care. And I think that's what the

American public wants to see. The American public is not

behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the

bill.

Now, he has changed his position two or three times and it is hard to get a beat on exactly how he feels about ObamaCare, but when he talks, people listen. The problem is the people we need to hear from the most aren't being heard.

I got a letter from Christy in Jonesboro, in my district, and I'm going to share that letter with you today. It says:

As I was listening to the radio this morning, people were

calling in about how ObamaCare is already affecting them. I

just want you to know a little about our family.

My husband and I are 48 years old, have been married 29

years, and have three daughters, ages 16, 18, and 23--all

still living at home, although the 23-year-old does work a

full-time job.

My husband has been an auto-body mechanic for most of his

life. This has taken a serious toll on his body as a result

of strenuous physical labor paired with breathing chemicals.

He has worked at numerous body shops--always looking for a

better environment/pay/benefits. I will say, as a body man's

wife, the people making good livings in this area are the

body shop owners and the health insurance companies.

Every shop he ever worked at offered him health insurance,

but the premiums were always around $200 a week just for him.

There was no way we could afford $800 a month for something

that may or may not happen.

Our family of five has rarely been sick. I have tried to

practice preventative health care by what I feed my family

because I'm positive a large percentage of health costs are

due to diet.

My husband makes $500 a week, on average; my daughter makes

a little over $300 a week. Our rent is $800 a month.

Utilities run $200. We can barely afford the $47 liability

insurance on my husband's vehicle. My daughter pays the

$95 liability insurance on her vehicle.

We have barely been able to buy groceries, and I know how

to shop frugally. We have no credit cards or expensive

habits. We use the library a great deal. My question is: What

will we do when we are fined because we don't have health

insurance? There is absolutely no way we can afford health

insurance for a family of five.

It is hard to go day by day watching what is happening with

the government of this once great Nation. I am so discouraged

and disappointed, and I try not to fear the future when it

comes to the American Government, which will dictate my

future regardless. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully, Christy in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

I want Christy to know, and I want everybody in America to know, that I hear you. Those guys that are driving the nails, those guys that are turning the wrenches, the nurses that are providing health care, the firemen who are doing their jobs working the 40-hour week, barely making ends meet, and we're piling more and more debt on this country-- $1.3 trillion in additional costs, when Social Security and Medicare are nearing bankruptcy. It's unconscionable.

I want folks to know, certainly in my district and folks across the country, that there are people here that hear you. And we're going to work for you and try to fix this problem because we can't sustain this any longer.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This legislation takes a significant step in reforming the food stamp program by preserving benefits for Americans truly in need of help, while holding accountable those who are capable of helping themselves.

Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen the food stamp program grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye to a system fraught with abuse. This legislation will no longer allow States to exploit various loopholes, such as artificially making people eligible simply by mailing a TANF brochure, or substantially increasing benefits by sending a nominal LIHEAP check.

This legislation also no longer allows States to waive work requirements that were put in place in the 1996 welfare reform law. As another Arkansan, President Bill Clinton, said when he signed the reform bill into law, we are making ``welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life.''

The reforms in this bill will give people a second chance by ensuring food stamps will be there when people fall on hard times, but promoting self-sufficiency through employment training programs so able-bodied Americans can get back to work.

Madam Speaker, this bill preserves and protects the food stamp program for the most vulnerable Americans by putting an end to institutional abuses that threaten its future viability. We can't expect to continue to provide assistance to the poor if we allow abuse to bankrupt the food stamp system.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may restore integrity to the program and continue to provide for those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for his extraordinary leadership throughout this trying process.

I'm pleased to say we're one step closer to providing our ag producers the certainty that they need to accomplish their goals through a 5-year farm bill.

This bill is a product of our extensive outreach to farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders across the country, and reflects the critical input we received from our rural constituents in the farm bill process that allowed producers to be heard. The Ag Committee held more than 40 farm bill hearings in Washington and across the countryside. Through this rigorous audit hearing process, we scrutinized every dollar authorized in the legislation we're offered today. What's more, the bill is the result of an open process that allowed for consideration of the ideas of anyone and everyone in the House.

Ag is the number one industry in my district and the State of Arkansas; and according to the University of Arkansas, it accounts for over 250,000 direct jobs in my State. But, Mr. Speaker, it is more important for everyone to know what's at stake. This legislation may be crafted to address the U.S. ag economy, but it's not just important to our rural constituents. It's important to everyone. I have always said that if you eat, you're involved in agriculture; and I would ask my colleagues to think about that. Even if you don't have ag interests or production in your district, every single one of our constituents depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 2300.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

In order for farmers in my district to compete, their operations must be economies of scale. This is largely due to the high cost of production, expensive machinery, and razor-thin margins.

In order to remain economically viable, a mid-South farmer must produce a high quantity of crops and then sell that crop at an adequate price, which doesn't always work out so well. Some years in Arkansas a farmer might do very well if conditions are right and the prices don't drop too low, but in other years times can be absolutely brutal. This amendment takes the wrong approach because it adds even more uncertainty to the farmer's operation.

Most farmers go to the bank for loans to pay production costs and purchases of new technology and machinery. Once you introduce a restrictive AGI, it becomes much more difficult to obtain the financing necessary to sustain an operation and stay in business.

Through a careful approach, the Ag Committee has already brought significant reforms to AGI eligibility, which has already been difficult on some of my producers. We certainly don't need to go a step further.

Additionally, requiring active, on-farm labor is counterproductive for two reasons: one, it discourages farms from improving and becoming more efficient; and, two, it discourages the participation of young farmers, and that could mean that they're out of a job. Farm owners and operators need to focus their attention on the management of the overall farm and key management decisions.

I strongly urge defeat of this amendment, with all due respect.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise respectfully in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

My district located in the Mississippi Delta region grows nearly half all rice produced in the United States. This amendment jeopardizes the safety net row crop producers in my district depend on to manage risk and stay in business.

Given the fact that price volatility is the primary risk mid-South farmers face, and the cost of production is extremely high, the Price Loss Coverage program is the only viable option to provide producers adequate protection. Leading experts and ag economists at Texas A&M University show the average cost of production for rice is $14.92 per hundredweight. The $14 per hundredweight reference price established in the FARRM Bill is realistic and will not kick in unless the producer experiences a loss.

What is more, CBO projections already take into account the probability of price movements that can impact the overall cost productions of the PLC policy, and U.S. farm policy has come in well under budget projections for at least the last 7 years. This amendment is unnecessary and will do nothing but create more uncertainty for agriculture producers.

The House Agriculture Committee has made a good-faith bipartisan effort

to craft a farm bill that reflects a farmer's risk across all regions of the country. This amendment is a step backwards.

With all due respect, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

I thank the chairman.

I would just like to respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would dismantle one of the most effective diplomatic tools available to the United States. Food for Peace promotes the good will of the American people by providing American- grown food supplies to the poorest and most vulnerable populations in the world. This program has been in place for nearly 60 years and is the cornerstone of the United States' diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

If there are any inefficiencies, as the sponsors of this amendment suggest, then USDA and USAID must be held accountable for them because they coordinate the program's implementation. I reject the idea that direct cash assistance from the Local and Regional Purchase Program, or LRP, is a better way to go because it will simply provide food vouchers used to buy foreign-sourced food. This sounds less like reform and more like a proposal to provide food stamps to the world.

Instead of giving USAID free rein to spend cash however they see fit, Congress must recognize that Food for Peace allows our farmers to serve as ambassadors. As you can see on the sign beside me, the first thing starving people see when they receive a bag of rice--and it likely came from Arkansas--is the stamp of the American flag. We are concerned about what the contents of that bag are. That American flag means something, and we don't want to diminish the brand and the quality of the product contained in that bag.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I most respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, the MAP program has been a critical tool for producers in my district to access foreign markets. The program forms a private- public partnership that shares the cost of overseas marketing and promotional activities.

The current agriculture export forecast for FY13 is estimated to be nearly $140 billion, which smashes our export records. For a country that operates under a net trade deficit, agriculture has been a bright spot and generates a surplus.

Independent studies show that the MAP program is directly responsible for $6.1 billion of these exports. This is a 35 to 1 return on investment.

How many other Federal programs have this type of economic benefit? Not many.

With our trade forecast expected to increase this year, this reinforces the need for valuable programs such as the Market Access Program. I urge my colleagues most respectfully to oppose the amendment.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is just that--a nutrition assistance program--which is designed to provide nutrition assistance to eligible low-income individuals and their families. Personal hygiene items never have been eligible for purchase under a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program transaction and should never be eligible under SNAP. We should be devoting our scarce resources to providing food to hungry Americans, not personal hygiene items.

I urge my colleagues to join me in the opposition of this amendment and to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, as I'm prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I respect the initiative here. I appreciate that. I think that we're kind of wandering into uncharted waters here because we're talking about a farm bill and nutrition title, and this is not, I don't believe, in our purview to authorize the use of nutrition funds to address personal hygiene items, and that's why I have reservations about this.

I appreciate the effort put forth here and totally recognize the value of personal hygiene. I'm a big believer in personal hygiene. I just don't think that it's appropriate for us to address personal hygiene items in the context of nutrition.

For that reason, I would respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just like to say, on behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing this good government amendment before us today. Current law states that a State agency must return unused benefits to the Treasury after a 12- month period of inactivity. The gentleman's amendment simply shortens that time period that a SNAP recipient has to claim their benefits to 60 days.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding.

And on behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I would like to thank her for bringing this amendment to void the partnership with the Mexican Government that promotes participation in the SNAP program.

We support this amendment, and urge our colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose, with respect, the gentleman's amendment.

The addition of commercial fishing operations, which have traditionally not been recognized in FSA lending programs, unnecessarily extend the limits of an already oversubscribed lender. Commercial fishermen in need of disaster assistance are already able to apply for loans from both Farm Credit and the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his input on this.

I continue to oppose the amendment. I certainly sympathize with those affected by disaster. But given the current fiscal environment, it just defies common sense to implement new, duplicative lending programs.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that.

On behalf of Chairman Lucas, I certainly want to extend my appreciation for the gentleman's work on this issue. If the gentleman will be willing to withdraw his amendment, I have been assured by the chairman that he is more than willing to work with you on this important issue.

I thank the gentleman from New York.

I had the opportunity to discuss this with the gentleman from Georgia prior to debate.

As I understand it, if you are still of the mind and would like to consider withdrawing your amendment, I would gladly yield the balance of my time to allow you to do that.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would statutorily authorize a pilot program at $500,000. It's my understanding that USDA is already doing this without statutory capability. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter, but there is really no reason to legislate on an issue that the administration has the capability to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I feel like the chairman would certainly be of the mind to work with the gentleman from Mississippi on this if he is inclined to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the chairman.

Farm policy is intended to provide support when needed, based on production. U.S. farms have been forced to become larger to increase efficiency and remain competitive in the global marketplace. Arbitrarily limiting policies ultimately limits the ability of farms to grow and gain efficiencies, thereby penalizing U.S. farmers and putting them at a distinct disadvantage to our global competitors.

Adjusted gross income is different than farm profit. There are a number of expenses that must be covered. In addition to personal expenses, farmers must service debt, given the cost of today's machinery and land can easily reach into the millions.

AGI rules penalize spouses who oftentimes take off-farm jobs to help make ends meet when farmers are struggling with their farm income. An unreasonable AGI means test creates uncertainty for growers and their lenders by creating a ping-pong effect of being eligible one year and ineligible the next, making it difficult or impossible for lenders to measure, with any certainty, the future cash flow of thousands of farm and ranch families in order to make both short and long-term lending decisions.

In short, an unreasonable AGI means test would make U.S. farm policy unpredictable, inequitable and punitive for thousands of American farm and ranch families.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, first I want to thank the 71 Members from both parties who joined in cosponsoring the bill that is identical to this amendment, H.R. 311, the FUELS Act. That bill also passed the House unanimously last year.

The EPA-mandated spill prevention and containment countermeasure rules require that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 1,320 gallons make costly infrastructure modification to reduce the possibility of oil spills.

This bill simply changes those standards, makes them considerably more workable. We have 71 cosponsors that agree with me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.

I thank the chairman.

With that, I'd urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska for joining me in sponsoring this amendment.

Earlier this year, as most of us already know, the EPA violated the privacy rights of producers across the country by releasing the personal information of livestock and poultry producers to various environmental activist groups. This information included names, addresses, phone numbers, GPS coordinates of over 80,000 producers over 30 States, including my home State of Arkansas. It was obtained by the EPA through State environmental quality agencies and released to the environmental groups through FOIA requests.

We all know this story, and I'll be brief, and I will yield such time as my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) will consume.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I appreciate his leadership on this as well.

The Crawford-Terry amendment would prevent the EPA from making public the private information of producers, including their names, telephone numbers, addresses, email and physical, GPS coordinates or other identifying location information.

This measure will protect the individual privacy rights of ag producers and allow farm families to live without the threats of harassment and targeting.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California for his support.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.

I thank the chairman. With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their outstanding work in crafting the 2013 FARRM Bill. I would especially like to thank the farmers and ranchers across rural America for their patience as we work through this long, difficult process.

Madam Chair, the bill before us today is the product of our extensive outreach to farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders across the entire country.

I believe that the most essential aspect of writing any farm bill is the critical input we receive from our rural constituents. The Agriculture Committee made this possible through holding a series of farm bill field hearings in nearly every region of the country, allowing producers to contribute to the farm bill process by having their voices heard.

Last year, I had the opportunity to host one of those field hearings in my hometown of Jonesboro, where all types of producers from Arkansas and around the Midsouth region had a chance to testify. They shared with the committee the challenges they face in the modern agricultural economy and provided suggestions about how the farm bill can be tailored to reflect their unique risk in the marketplace. This feedback was critical in helping us craft policy that meets the needs of producers not only in Arkansas, but around the country.

After hearing from stakeholders across the Nation, it was remarkable to me to hear time and time again that ag producers are willing to do their part to reduce the deficit. This willingness has allowed the Ag Committee to craft a farm bill that saves nearly $40 billion. This was no easy task, mind you, and the committee had to make some very tough choices. But I believe we were able to fairly balance the needs of our producers with the need to pay down the debt.

The final product is a bipartisan farm bill that saves taxpayers money, reduces deficit spending, and repeals outdated government programs while reforming, streamlining, and consolidating others. Whether it's through the elimination of direct payments, the consolidation of conservation programs, or eliminating abuse in the food stamp program, every part of this bill contributes fairly to deficit reduction.

I proudly support the 2013 FARRM Bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.