Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

This legislation was the product of collaborative work done by two House committees, along with technical assistance from the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way legislation should be handled, and I am proud of our efforts in the House.

To refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticides regulations that are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.

I want to be clear, our pesticides are vigorously tested by the EPA to be used over, near, and in water without causing adverse effects to the environment. When used according to the label, the EPA has built in a significant margin of safety. Communities without established mosquito control districts are being deprived of the economic and health benefits of mosquito control.

Historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying services with the understanding that, if they followed the FIFRA label, they would be in compliance with the law. Now these local applicators must apply for an NPDES permit, create a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides, and wait for approval from the State or EPA. In most States, the permits are not free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the cumbersome administrative process have caused local applicators to discontinue mosquito control services.

The effort to have these same products today doubly regulated through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and, ultimately, undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy. Think about that--doubles their legal jeopardy.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for debate purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

I do, indeed, have one further request, and then I will yield back to my friend from Ohio, who will close.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

(Mr. YOHO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

This piece of legislation before us today is very familiar to many of us. As many of you will remember, we stood here 3 years ago voting on this same bill text. That bill, H.R. 872, was passed by this body with an overwhelming demonstration of bipartisan support. The legislation was the product of collaborative work done between two House committees, along with the technical assistance of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way legislation should be handled, and I was proud of our efforts in the House.

To refresh your memory, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticide applications that are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.

The effect to have these same products doubly regulated through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy.

Additionally, more than 40 States have endured increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting requirement process during a time when many States are already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. Should vector control agencies cease operations due to these costs, it will expose a vast new unprotected population cohort to mosquitoes potentially carrying a number of dangerous exotic diseases such as West Nile.

Some will argue the costs associated with this permit requirement have been small. As it stands, some people may believe millions of dollars to be a small amount, but I think most of our constituents would disagree. What nobody can document--and let's think about this again--what no one can document is a single benefit this burden has offered. In a time when our economy is struggling, regulatory burdens that add cost while providing no quantitative benefit need to be eliminated. This is an unnecessary, costly, duplicative permitting requirement. It is a poster child for regulatory reform.

Now, my friends, if you can only look at one thought, simply bear this in mind: by this misguided court ruling requiring the double permitting process, you are causing States to waste money. They don't have the money to waste.

I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

sifma,

June 19, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: SIFMA and its

member firms strongly support H.R. 4413, the Consumer

Protection and End User Relief Act, bipartisan legislation

that seeks to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (CFTC) to better protect futures customers,

provide market certainty for end-users, and make basic

reforms to improve the functioning of the CFTC.

One provision in this bill seeks to create harmonization of

cross-border swaps regulation by requiring the CFTC and SEC

to jointly promulgate rules in full compliance with the

Administrative Procedures Act and within 270 days. This is

necessary as the two agencies share jurisdiction over the

swaps markets and currently have inconsistent approaches to

the extraterritorial application of rules under Title VII of

the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision is largely similar to H.R.

1256, Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which passed the House

by vote of 301-124.

Another provision in the bill would prevent costly margin

requirements from being imposed on non-financial end-users

for their derivatives activity used to hedge commercial

risks. This provision is largely similar to H.R. 634,

Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013,

which passed the House by vote of 411-12.

SIFMA strongly urges you to vote for H.R. 4413. Thank you

for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Andy Blocker,

EVP, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to state that I really do appreciate the cooperative nature of the Ag Committee and the way that we have worked hard to put this very logical piece of legislation together to address a variety of issues.

I must say, though, in all respect to my colleague, I don't believe this particular language ever came up in any of the markups; so I must respectfully, in that regard, say that this is the wrong hour to be suggesting this language.

But I will go farther than that to say to my friends, if you are concerned about the price of fuel, if you are concerned about the availability of energy for industry and for individuals, we have some really good legislation out here that you should consider.

You should be looking at H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act; you should be looking at H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act; you should be looking at H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act. If you really want to make a difference, work for those pieces of legislation, support those pieces of legislation; but otherwise, let's take the bill that has been so carefully crafted, let's reject the motion to recommit with instructions, and let's just pass the bill.

With that, I do the greatest thing I can do for you: I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 4413.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 4413, the Clerk is authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, cross references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.

This is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that I introduced along with my colleagues, Ranking Member Collin Peterson and chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, Mike Conaway and David Scott.

This bill is years in the making, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all of the hard work that they have put in to get us to this point.

Throughout this process, the committee, as well as the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, held numerous hearings, heard from a variety of stakeholders with a wide variety of perspectives.

We heard from end users representing farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities. We heard testimony from every CFTC Commissioner and even foreign regulators. We also heard from exchanges, futures customers, and numerous other market participants.

Ultimately, we developed legislation to reauthorize and reform the CFTC in a way that would not only improve operations at the agency, but also protect customers from another market failure, as we saw with MF Global or PFGBEST.

Our efforts will also increase certainty in the marketplace and provide a more balanced approach to regulations impacting job creators.

I am proud to say this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee by a voice vote.

First of all, H.R. 4413 will better protect farmers and ranchers who use the futures markets to manage their risk by cementing several new and existing protections into law.

These protections are designed to restore confidence in the marketplace following the failure of MF Global and PFGBEST, where customers, who thought their money was safely segregated, suffered severe financial loss due to the illegal use of their funds.

Such protections include requiring firms to calculate and report customer account balances electronically to regulators, requiring firms who become undercapitalized to immediately notify regulators, and imposing strict reporting and permission requirements before the movement of a customer's funds from one account to another.

Now, as for the reforms of the Commission, H.R. 4413 reauthorizes the appropriations to the agency through 2018. Furthermore, the bill strives to enhance the efficiency of the Commission operations and ensure all Commissioners' voices are heard in the regular order of a well-reasoned rulemaking process.

For example, H.R. 4413 closely follows an executive order issued by President Obama to improve the quality of cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior to promulgating rules; requires division directors to serve at the pleasure of the entire Commission, rather than solely at the whim of the chairman; and clarifies the judicial review process of agency rules.

The Commission reform title also calls for the development of a much- needed strategic technology plan to enhance market surveillance and the interpretation of collected data.

Importantly, H.R. 4413 also provides much-needed relief to end users. Those are the market participants who account for only 10 percent of the swaps market and had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, yet represent 94 percent of U.S. job creators, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities.

Due to the consideration of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress clearly intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new regulations. However, the CFTC has narrowly interpreted the law, resulting in burdensome and often arbitrary compliance requirements which have negatively impacted end users by making it more difficult and costly to manage the risks associated with their businesses.

To address these concerns, H.R. 4413 includes provisions which relieve business owners from arbitrary and costly record-keeping requirements, allow businesses to continue successful fuel-hedging strategies, and prevent the physical delivery of commodities from being unnecessarily regulated as swaps.

H.R. 4413 provides help to America's job creators by including five carefully crafted measures designed to enhance market certainty, which have previously passed the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee and the United States House of Representatives, with overwhelming bipartisan support, three of which received over 400 votes in favor.

In closing, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act is a wide-ranging, bipartisan CFTC reauthorization bill that provides a blueprint for the newly elected Chairman and Commissioners to use in making numerous improvements at the Commission, better protects futures customers, and reduces burdens on America's job creators. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2014.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.

4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act. As you

noted, there are provisions of the bill that fall within the

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 4413,

and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the

Committee on the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I will also include a copy of our exchange of letters in

the Congressional Record during floor debate.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Hudson, who has crafted a key component of this major reform bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), an outstanding Member who also has worked a key portion of this bill, and his legislation reflects it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), who not only has a key component of this bill, but in his role as chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management carried the lion's share of the subcommittee hearing work and the day-to-day efforts that came to be known as H.R. 4413.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) whose good work as a freestanding bill passed unanimously in this body.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who has a major component in this overall legislation.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I would note to my colleague, I have no additional speakers and would reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that once again the House Agriculture Committee, in the tradition of the House Agriculture Committee, has worked very diligently to address issues that are of great impact on rural America and on our national economy. In that tradition of bipartisanship--call it nonpartisanship if you want--Mr. Peterson and I, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Scott have worked in full committee and subcommittee together to craft what is a reasonable, logical set of proposals to address some real issues out there.

Any of you who have observed this process know that the committee is not timid in trying to do the right thing; and we have a track record of however long it takes, however hard it is, to do the right thing.

Now, some will say this piece of legislation may or may not have an impact on the decisionmaking process in some other body. I would just note to you, we have identified, through all of the hearings and all the testimony and all the input from within government and without government, that there are some things that need to be done. With this piece of legislation, we will encourage progress on those issues.

I urge all of my colleagues, vote for H.R. 4413. Move the process along; help us get ultimately to a product that will address these problems. This is a rather substantial impact on the national economy. If we don't do the things that we are proposing in the Agriculture Committee that we do, harm will be done, job creation will be impacted,

every consumer and every working person will feel the effects negatively. So pass the bill. Pass the bill.

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

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

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

Although it is my understanding that the substance of the gentleman from Oregon's amendment would be broadly addressed within the existing language of section 107, I certainly see no problem with ensuring that his concerns are addressed more specifically. Therefore, I will suggest to my colleague from Oregon, let's accept your amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in a time of economic uncertainty, tight fiscal budgets, I advise against the use of valuable Commission time and resources on a study with some ambiguous terms and no clear practical use.

H.R. 4413 already includes carefully crafted requirements for studies on the pertinent issues of agency funding and on the effects of high- frequency trading. So I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from Washington and her cosponsors, the gentlemen from New York and California--all valued Members of the House Agriculture Committee-- builds on the enhancements of the cost-benefit analysis required in this bill by preserving the court's ability to review the Commission rules or orders.

I congratulate the sponsors of this amendment. Once again, the House Ag Committee proves that working in a bipartisan manner is possible and productive. This is the type of cooperation I think our friends back home would want to see and demand.

With that, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

In crafting the Consumer Protection and End User Relief Act, I worked closely with Ranking Member Peterson to ensure that judicial review of CFTC rules would be on the same footing as a review of security laws from the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The current disparity between security laws and the Commodity Exchange Act has resulted in confusion in the past, as aggrieved parties were unsure of where to go to seek review of CFTC rules.

Quite simply, I urge my colleagues to vote against what I fear is a regressive amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I might consume.

Once again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against what I am concerned is a regressive amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I would simply note: let's cut to the point here. The CFTC, when finalizing the rules for registered investment companies, deferred almost entirely to the SEC to regulate them, so this amendment is in line with what the CFTC has already done.

I urge my colleagues to support the commonsense amendment. Let's just do what is reflected here, and I thank the gentleman for his input.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4413.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding citizen of Oklahoma's third congressional district. Dr. David Cockrell of Stillwater, Oklahoma, will soon be elected President of the American Optometric Association (AOA) as the association's 92nd president.

Dr. Cockrell is a graduate of the Southern College of Optometry. He is a past president of the Southwest Council of Optometry, and served in Oklahoma as chair of the Congress Committee as well as the State and Federal Legislative Committees. He is also a past President of the Oklahoma Association of Optometric Physicians and has been honored as the Oklahoma Optometrist of the Year. In 2012, he was named Distinguished Optometrist of the Year by the Oklahoma Association of Optometric Physicians. These are just a few ways in which David has served his community, profession, and colleagues over the years.

Dr. Cockrell is a dedicated advocate of optometric issues, and I am proud to have him serving as this year's AOA president. What an honor it is to have an Oklahoman serving in such a prestigious capacity! I am confident his leadership will serve his profession well, and I join his family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on this tremendous achievement and wish him the very best.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that my friend from Georgia agrees with the President on something. That is kind of a fascinating turn of events considering his traditional record, but let's focus for a moment on what the upstream flood control dams do.

This is a program that began in the 1940s to build small earthen dams--too small to fall within the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction--to act as interlocking flood control structures to protect people and property and assets below the structures wherever they may be, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean or all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

The problem, you see, is that, as meritorious and as wonderful as these 3,000 structures have worked, time takes its toll on everything, and if we don't pursue this program to rehabilitate them--to extend the life--not only will they not continue the protection of people and of property and of wildlife and not only will they not restrain the silt and manage floods, but they will have to be taken out, and all of the good they have done will be undone.

So what does this language in the bill do?

It provides cost share money so that local entities can rehabilitate these structures.

My colleague was exactly right in that the advance of technology is tremendous. The work that is done should last--instead of 50 years--100 years or more, but we have got 3,000 of these structures, and they are getting older. Spending a little money to extend their lives to continue to protect wildlife and people and property from every structure all the way to the ocean seems like a wise use of resources.

Now, I understand that there is something like $900 million in requested funding in 2014 to meet this need. This farm bill language doesn't meet all of that need, but it takes a huge step in the right direction. We spend a lot of money around here on things that last just a few minutes or a few hours or a few days. This is an investment that will last a century in building on a previous half century's investment--a wise use of resources.

The government built these dams to protect life and property, and many of these structures are hitting their life expectancies. Let's spend a little bit to continue that wise investment. Yes, let's keep the silt out of the streams, and, yes, let's enhance the wildlife qualities up and down these streams, but don't ever forget not just the property but the people who can sleep at night without the fear of what Mother Nature may do because of the upstream flood control dams.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I urge them to continue to support the investment that has been so wisely made since the 1940s. Please vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

My friends, once again, slightly different amount, same subject.

What can I say?

Yes, in the process of putting the farm bill together, where we saved $23 billion, we looked very carefully at all of the programs underneath our jurisdictions. Many things were reformed, reducing spending.

Some things that have worked extremely well actually received more resources. I think that part of being competent and wise legislators is assessing how the resources are used, reducing spending in wasteful areas, and enhancing spending in areas that are wisely spent. I think that is what we are about here.

Now, I know that apparently there are outside groups that have chosen to score this, and I would remind my friends that they score a variety of things. But why do you have to pick on the things that affect rural America?

Why do you have to address the infrastructure issues that go after public safety, preservation of property, life itself?

I suppose if you are sitting somewhere in an ivory tower typing out scorecards, you can pick the things that are less relevant to you.

But of those 3,000 structures scattered across America, dating back to the 1940s, countless, countless lives and millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of property have been protected. I think that is a good use of our resources, a wise commitment in how we allocate our funds.

Now, some of my colleagues have alluded to the way in which the funds are handled, the mandatory dollars coming through the farm bill every so many years and how, in the magical process called appropriations, some of that mandatory money becomes discretionary.

I do not pretend to have enough time to discuss the nuances of that art form, but I will say this: as long as the resources are of sufficient caliber to make a major effort in meeting the needs that exist, whether it is through the every 5-year farm bill or the annual appropriations process by our friends on the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, let's just do the right thing. And on this occasion, we are doing the right thing.

If you care about long-term investments, if you care about public safety, if you care about property--and I repeat one more time: for those of you have ever been in the field that look at these structures, they act to control silt flows in streams. That is important to wildlife and fish. That is important to water quality, and they inhibit these floods that come, and then they meter the water out in a slow fashion.

The overwhelming lion's share of them do not impound water, they simply slow the process down so that the streams and rivers below can handle it.

My real regret here is that we haven't put more effort in the last 50 years into these structures. If we had, if we would have, if we could, or if we will some day, the effect on the environment, the effect on our fellow citizens will be tremendous, even more than it is now.

Again, please reject this amendment. I know my Republican friends here are very sincere in following the President's lead on this, but please reject this amendment. Let's continue to make this investment.

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

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

I respect my colleague from Tennessee greatly. I believe he is very sincere in what he is trying do. I do not question his motives. I have great faith in Congressman Duncan.

But this amendment, like the previous amendment, has long-term ramifications. They have long-term ramifications on previous investments made.

Let's reject these two amendments. Let's continue the good work that has been done. Let's focus on the things that we need to be doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 465, I call up the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this has been a long and seemingly epic journey that the House Agriculture Committee has been upon, and Mr. Peterson, myself, our colleagues, literally 3 years, actually 4, when you consider the beginning hearings under then-Chairman Peterson to start this process.

We have all discussed the details. We will discuss the details more in greater length in just a moment on this final conference report that reflects the net result of both the Senate and House work.

But I would say this. Whatever your feelings might be about the policy issues involved within the bill, understand, this formal conference that has now come to a conclusion, soon, I hope, to be ratified by the body, reflects at the committee level, at the floor level in the House, and, I think, in the conference level, how legislation should be put together.

Many people criticize us and this body as dysfunctional. But if they look at all of the amendments we considered, every time we took the farm bill up in the committee, all of the debate, all of the discussion, if they consider the amazing amount of amendments we considered on the floor of the United States House and all the debates and the discussion and the votes, if they take note of how long and how much effort the principals and the conferees put into putting this conference report together, they would understand that this bill, while everyone may not agree with every line, every word, every policy in it, this bill reflects, unlike almost any that have been done for years, how it should be done--good men and women of different opinions working to get to a final product.

I hope this reflects a change in how we will do our business here across the board. I am proud of what we have done, and I am proud of how we have done it. I am proud of the reforms and savings. I am proud of my ranking member, and all my colleagues who have been involved.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my outstanding subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our hardest working subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) who has been very focused on these critical issues, especially those involving livestock.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), another one of my outstanding subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who has worked extremely diligently early on on this bill and through the entire process.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time the three of us have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who understands the diversity of weather and understands the challenges that producers have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), another one of our outstanding subcommittee chairmen.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) who is so focused on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who has some of the

most productive agricultural land and some of the most amazing farmers and ranchers.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time, unless we are ready to close.

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

First, I would also like to join my colleague in adding to the Congressional Record a list of the majority staff members.

I must say in all fairness, while there was cooperation among the members of the committee itself, the cooperation among House and Senate Members was exemplary.

I would also note the work of our staff, those good men and women, R and D, House and Senate, over the course of these years cannot be underestimated or underappreciated. The hours, the spirit of comity, the focus on accomplishing things, trying to do good policy, it just cannot be overstated how important all those good folks have been.

With that, Mr. Speaker, let me simply close by saying this: no one cares more about agricultural policy, farmers and ranchers, consumers and everyone in the process that takes it from the seed to the plate or the bowl than I do. But I think in good faith I can say my colleague Mr. Peterson cares just as much as I do. The members of our committee care just as much as we do.

This bill, done in what I would like to define as regular order through the committee process and the floor and the conference, may not have exactly everything my friends on the right would want or my friends on the left would want, but it represents making the process work, achieving consensus, putting into place policies that are better than what were there before to drive this effort forward.

I know that we sincerely disagree on many things, and I know some of my friends don't sometimes act like they care about what happens out on the farm or the ranch. I know that is not the case. They do care.

But I would simply say this: no matter how much money we spend on supplemental programs to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to eat--and

that is important--never forget if there is not a product on the shelf, if there is not meat in the case, if there are not vegetables or fruit available, it doesn't matter how much you subsidize. The food has to be there.

That is why I have said all along a farm bill still has to have farm in it. This Agriculture Act of 2014 lives up to that. It makes a commitment to our fellow citizens who are in tough times, but it will also ensure the food will be there.

Don't take us down the path that many other countries have gone through in the last century of people lined up at empty shelves, people hoarding particular ag products because it is available that day because they will trade it the next day when something might be available.

Let's continue to do this miracle called American agriculture. Oh, by the way, depending on how you define ``miracle'' in the environment we have worked together in, this farm bill might not be quite defined by most people as a miracle, but it is amazingly close.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass the conference report, let's complete our responsibilities, let's show the rest of this place how it is supposed to be done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

House Committee on Agriculture Staff List

Majority Staff: Brent Blevins, Caleb Crosswhite, Mike

Dunlap, Bart Fischer, Jason Goggins, John Goldberg, Tamara

Hinton, John Konya, Kevin Kramp, Brandon Lipps, Alan Mackey,

Brian Martin-Haynes, Josh Mathis, Josh Maxwell, Merrick

Munday, Danita Murray, Mary Nowak, Riley Pagett, Matt

Schertz, Nicole Scott, Debbie Smith, Skylar Sowder, Patricia

Straughn, Pelham Straughn, Pete Thomson, Margaret Wetherald.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Friday, January 31, 2014; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Monday, February 3, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Calvert, I do. I have already had a conversation with Chairwoman Stabenow, who is a strong supporter of PILT funding, as well as Chairman Hastings of the House Natural Resources Committee, whose committee oversees the program. I also have the backing of House Republican leadership.

I can assure you both that it is my intention to provide funding for PILT in the final conference committee agreement on the farm bill. I am very much aware of the importance of this program for rural communities across America in providing funding for necessary functions like police, education, and infrastructure.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I look forward to working with you on this in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Floyd King, a decorated World War II veteran, peanut farmer and advocate, model U.S. citizen and one of my constituents.

Floyd was born September 14th, of 1918 in Binger, Oklahoma and recently passed on December 11th of 2013 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Floyd was the youngest of 8 and grew up in Sickles, Oklahoma and married his wife Lola in 1941. Floyd served the United States in the Army during the Second World War in the European Theatre, seeing action at the Bulge, Geilenkirchen, and near Bastogne where he exhibited courage and skill that earned him the Bronze Star. Upon returning from the war Floyd bought a farm in Caddo County and engaged in production agriculture. Inspired by irrigation systems he had observed in California during his military training, he studied and researched the aquifers of western Oklahoma and the drilling of water wells and started King's Irrigation Service in 1954. Floyd worked with Oklahoma State University and U.S. Speaker of the House Carl Albert to further research that supported peanut production in Caddo County. He was President of the Southwest Peanut Growers Association and of the Oklahoma Peanut Growers Association. He sat on the National Peanut Board of Directors, on the Anadarko Bank and Trust Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors of the Gold Kist Corporation in Atlanta, GA. Floyd lobbied Congress, myself included, for decades to preserve the federal peanut program. Floyd was a member of the Oakdale Missionary Baptist Church where he served in many capacities including Sunday School Teacher and Song Leader. He was Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Cedar Hills Baptist Youth Camp for many years, and was a very proud to help raise funds for the National World War Two Memorial. Floyd was passionate about serving the Lord through song. He and his brothers Ted, Eugene, and Warren King comprised the ``King Brothers Quartet'' which sang across the area at church and social gatherings, weddings and funerals, and even on the radio.

He is what I consider to be a great individual example of America's ``Greatest Generation'', a generation which endured the great depression, dust bowl and World War II. Floyd survived these hardships and grew stronger, just as many did. He was a pillar of the community and a dedicated man of faith, family and country who will not be forgotten. I stand here to share the legacy of this man from Western Oklahoma who showed that while things may not always be easy, character is developed through life experiences--to which he had attained both in droves.

In recognition of all that he has done, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in remembering the life of Floyd King who will be greatly missed by those whom he proceeded, but has now joined his brothers and sisters--resting peacefully in eternity.