Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3695) to provide a temporary extension of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and amendments made by that Act, as previously extended and amended and with certain additional modifications and exceptions, to suspend permanent price support authorities, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 3695.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3695, which provides a temporary extension of the 2008 farm bill.

I believe this short-term extension provides certainty to everyone going into the new year, that permanent law will not be triggered while the conference committee continues its work on a new bill. We are making significant progress in our negotiations with the Senate, and I am confident we will be able to finish the conference report in January.

In the meantime, the reality is that unless we act today, permanent law takes effect January 1. The press headlines already speak of doom, that we are on the brink of going off the dairy cliff.

Time magazine says: ``People are freaking out about $8-a-gallon milk.'' And there is widespread speculation about what will happen and when exactly.

It is not necessary to have that kind of panic throughout the country for producers and consumers, especially around the holidays. This bill makes clear what will happen on January 1, and passing it is the responsible action to take, given the legislative calendar.

Furthermore, we are not breaking any new ground. The 2002 farm bill was extended six times before the 2008 farm bill was enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I urge and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this short-term extension of the farm bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note to my colleague I have a couple of thoughts myself and I would conclude with that, so if he has anything else he would like to address.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time just simply to note to all my colleagues that my friend from California is exactly right. The importance of completing this cannot be overstated.

The progress we have made certainly has been incredible, and we are on the verge. I would just simply note to all of my colleagues, as I have advocated caution and responsibility throughout this entire process, this is an opportunity for Members to cast a vote to acknowledge to the folks back home that, no matter what happens in the negotiations process, we will not have a dairy cliff. We will not have uncertainty for producers and, ultimately, the American consumers.

Each Member of this body is challenged to do what they think is wise. I would simply say to my colleagues, pass the extension, take care of business, and we, on the Ag Committee, will take care of our business in January.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

First, I would note, again, to my colleagues that this is one of the final stages of this long, challenging process of putting a comprehensive farm bill together.

With the conclusion of this debate on this sense of the Congress resolution and the votes that I suspect will come sometime later today or tomorrow, we will begin then with the appointment of conferees, the formal process of working out the differences between House and Senate bills. That is no small accomplishment, considering how many years Ranking Member Peterson and I and the members of the House Agriculture Committee have put into this effort. As a matter of fact, when we started the process of gathering information and putting the hearing record together, I was the ranking member, and Mr. Peterson was the chairman. So this has been a long, long process.

Now, I must say that I am obligated to rise in opposition to the resolution. I think the world of the author of this amendment, and in his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, not only is he well-intentioned in this amendment and his many other efforts, but let's be honest, our friend has a tremendous amount of work on his plate, addressing everything from the issues about how we work our way out of this debt ceiling matter, how we address funding the Federal Government, how we finally put a budget resolution together. I know he is a busy, busy man; but I must say the committee focused very hard for literally years on all of these issues.

I won't pretend that with all of the things going on right now, not that many weeks after some very intense debate on the floor of this House, the goodly number of our Members are not focused on particular nuances of the farm bill, but on everything else going on.

But I would remind my good friends, the perspective of the House Ag Committee and the perspective of the majority--yes, maybe I have had too much fun with farm bills in recent years--of this process has led us to believe that it was important that we encourage participation in crop insurance. Crop insurance is like other insurance. It is about creating a pool of risk and spreading it out as far as you possibly can, having as many participants as you possibly can to share adversity, to contribute more premiums into that pool so that when you have that inevitable loss somewhere, you are better able to address it. And that is the perspective the committee took and I believe the House, as a whole, took. Get as many people involved in

utilizing and expanding the insurance pool as is possible.

Now, this sense of the Congress language is, in many ways, similar to the Senate language and would restrict the number of people based on AGI that would be able to participate, taking people out of the pool, shrinking the pool. These are, in all fairness, some of the most efficient farmers.

I will just simply ask my colleagues, remember the work of the committee and the work of this body. Help us keep this program as viable as possible.

Help us make sure that all farmers have the tools to mitigate their risk.

Now, there is one other perspective here, and we have talked about this many times, and it is the perspective of, what is the farm bill about? Is it about raising food and fiber? Is it about meeting the nutritional needs of our citizens in this country and having our surplus available to consumers around the rest of the world?

Or is it about deciding who a farmer should be, and using policy decisions within the farm bill to pick people who we want to farm, and to deny resources to people we don't happen to like who want to farm also?

I reject that also. Farm bills are about farming, raising food and fiber, meeting the needs.

I would ask again, very respectfully, of my colleagues, honor the decisions of the full House not all that long ago. Reject this sense of the House resolution.

Remember that you are helping us build on something that is kind of amazing in this session of Congress, a bill that came out of committee with $40 billion in mandatory spending reform, with a bipartisan vote, a bill that left the United States House with a total of $60 billion in mandatory spending reforms.

I can think of no other committee in this session of Congress that can lay claim to that--$60 billion in mandatory reform.

Let us go to conference. Let us have as much flexibility as possible. Let us finish our work. Let us finish our good work, and we will bring a product back to you from conference that you can judge on its merits.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of our primary subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the good gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This debate is coming to a conclusion. I appreciate that greatly. The civil tone, the nature of the discussion, is something that we should do more of in this body; but I would note a couple of quick thoughts to my colleagues.

There have been many references made to the historic crop insurance payments made in the 2012 crop year. One of those amazing circumstances was huge amounts of the Midwest, some of the most productive corn land in America, simply didn't produce a crop--or not much of a crop. That is no fault of the farmer involved. That is Mother Nature's decision not to provide the right amount of moisture or, in other places, too much moisture.

But, you see, that is what crop insurance is all about. When I first came here, we had a system that worked around--not crop insurance, which didn't work very well and wasn't subscribed to by a lot of people. We had a system of ad hoc disasters. If you had a problem here or a problem there, then you would have a special appropriations bill to fund that disaster. Those special bills tended to grow and expand; and over time, they became a huge drain on the Treasury.

That is why, starting aggressively in the '96 farm bill--pushed even harder by then-Chairman Peterson in the 2008 farm bill--the focus became: no more ad hoc disasters bills. Have a crop insurance program that works. Make it clear to producers that, if you have a problem, you have to have insurance, that you have to participate, that you have to pay the premiums.

Now, over the course of approximately the last decade, setting the 2012 year aside, this has become an amazingly orderly system. Many Members in this room don't remember ad hoc agricultural disaster bills because this has worked that well. I would challenge you in most--in more than in the majority of the years--that the resources coming into the program have been greater than the payments going out, but that is the way insurance is supposed to work--you pay in in good years, and you hope you never use the product; but in bad years, the assistance is there. Call it crop insurance. Call it life insurance. Call it fire insurance on your house. It is the principle behind the concept.

Now, the specific language we address here.

There has been much discussion about the draft that the United States Senate has adopted in its farm bill. It is the same 750 number, and he does include a study; but one of the main differences between what we are addressing today and what the Senate has in its language in going to conference is that the study, in effect, requires the USDA look at the effect of this limitation on the participation in the program and determine if that affects the viability of the program. Does it change the dynamics? Does it suddenly become a greater expense as you shrink the pool? It gives the Secretary the authority, if that study determines that this will be negative to crop insurance, to suspend the provision. That is not in this sense of Congress. It says, ``You shall.'' ``You will.''

One other passing thought: there has been a lot of discussion about reducing the numbers, the percentages, from 65 to 50. I will just simply note to you that in many cases that, in effect, is not just a 15 percent move; that is a 40 percent move. Think about that. If you are a farmer--who is a businessperson--assessing the cost of your inputs and trying to match that up with a potential return on your outputs, you are going to make those hard business decisions.

Again, I think the world of my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee. I know he has a lot of things on his plate, and I know he has had a great many challenges in his tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee; but I will tell you that I think the Ag Committee has worked very diligently to craft language that we are now about to send to conference in order to work out the ultimate bill that reflects a lot of open process--in committee, on the floor, in a lot of input with motions to instruct today, and in another sense of the House resolution. We have acknowledged and responded to that input.

You have battled as Members of this body--and debated and discussed and voted--on all of these issues before. I would just ask my colleagues to remember what this body decided not all that long ago and that, also, as we go to conference with the Senate, it is going to be a very difficult thing to protect our $60 billion in mandatory spending reform that you have directed us to do. Give the committee, give me, give the ranking member as many tools and as much flexibility as you can so that we may prevail from the House's point of view in accomplishing common policy with the Senate that meets not only the goals of this Chamber, but the needs of this country.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.

As we all know, in July, the House passed a farm bill--farm bill only. This legislation did not include title IV, which consists of the nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Since that time, our Leader Cantor has put together a working group, of which I was a part, to create a bill that better targets Federal nutrition programs to serve those in need of assistance. H.R. 3102 is the by-product of that effort.

Before I begin to highlight some of its provisions, let me take a moment to say what we all know to be true. There's no denying that SNAP provides important support for many Americans who are struggling. It serves a noble purpose: to help you when you hit bottom. But it's not meant to keep you at the bottom, and that's why it's important we ensure the integrity of the program, so that it's working in the most effective and efficient way, that it works to get you back up on your feet.

Let me highlight some of the provisions that make this possible.

First, it incorporates all of the savings and reforms that were in H.R. 1947 that was favorably reported by the House Agriculture Committee in a large bipartisan vote. H.R. 1947 saved more than $20 billion by eliminating categorical eligibility to ensure that States are enforcing the asset and income test in SNAP law. It closed the heat-and-eat loophole to prevent States from sending out $1 LIHEAP checks to SNAP recipients to artificially increase their benefit levels.

It ended the practice of giving States bonuses for responsibly administering SNAP, which is their duty. It tightened restrictions to prevent lottery winners and traditional college students from participating in the program. And it restricted the Department of Agriculture from advertising SNAP on radio and television shows, such as soap operas. The bill we are considering today also incorporates many reforms that were adopted on the floor when the House considered H.R. 1947 in June.

And, finally, the efforts of the working group. This bill includes additional reforms that eliminate a State's ability to waive the current work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. It encourages employment and training by providing cost-share funds to States that adopt provisions under a new work pilot program. And it increases funding for food banks, which have been successful in effectively utilizing government dollars and securing private-sector donations in order to feed hungry Americans.

Ultimately, this bill encourages and enables work participation and makes commonsense reforms, closes program loopholes and eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program, saving the American taxpayer nearly $40 billion.

I will admit to you this has been an unusual process. But it remains my goal to get a 5-year farm bill enacted. I'm doing everything possible to make sure that that happens this year. This is a step toward that goal. It is my hope that we'll pass this bill so the farm bill process will continue. We have a responsibility to get this done. Quite simply, it shouldn't be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all of us in this economy have enough to eat. And that's what a farm bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so the process can continue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), and I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from Michigan knows because he's been a leader in this area, this Congress is committed to ensuring that our Nation's veterans have the support they need to enter successful civilian careers after their military service. This House led by passing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, a comprehensive jobs bill to reduce veteran unemployment by retraining veterans to make them more competitive in today's job market. I'm pleased that the Senate followed our lead and that the VOW Act is now law.

This bill does not target veterans, though I understand the concerns you have raised today. So long as a veteran meets the asset and income test currently in SNAP law and complies with the applicable work requirement, he or she will continue to receive nutrition benefits. As with all disabled adults, veterans who have a physical or mental disability are exempt from work requirements. There are also numerous Federal job training and education programs specifically targeting veterans that spend over $10 billion a year to ensure our veterans can get back to work. Additionally, we currently provide up to 73 weeks of unemployment benefits for veterans in our highest unemployment States.

Even so, I know I speak for the entire Agriculture Committee when I say we are committed to protecting our veterans in a way that honors their service and sacrifice to our Nation, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that the final conference committee agreement does just that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my subcommittee chairmen.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3102.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the primary subcommittee chairman on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), and I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I am aware of the leadership of Colorado in this area. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Colorado as we move forward with this legislation to ensure that Federal dollars are available to States that actively move people to self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), who's worked very diligently on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have the honor and privilege to yield 1 minute to the majority floor leader of the United States House of Representatives, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my next-door neighbor from across the State line.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining for both myself and the ranking member?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the ranking member that I potentially have some additional speakers, but they've not made an appearance yet. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time to close if they do not appear.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

My dear colleagues, on several occasions we have alluded to the process that we have gone through now, literally, for years to try to craft a comprehensive farm bill.

I think most of you know that I would have preferred this have been accomplished a year ago. I was proud of the committee work done at the time, done in a bipartisan way. I was proud, even though we had to start over in a new session of Congress, of the bipartisan effort done in the committee this time.

Not every Republican or every Democrat on the committee voted for it; but we had a majority of both sides, something that seems to be kind of difficult these days on a lot of issues. But that bill came to the floor. And even after a number of amendments were adopted by a majority of this body primarily focused on the nutrition title, a majority of the body chose not to pursue that bill, not to allow it to move on. And we were compelled to bring what I affectionately referred to as a farm bill only to the floor, one without the critical title dealing with nutrition, and we were successful in passing that.

But as was noted by many of my colleagues on this side of the room, that left a critical piece out, the nutrition title. And that's the product that we are addressing today. It incorporates all of the efforts--I will repeat again--from the committee work dealing with categorical eligibility and LIHEAP and advertising and all of those things.

The language we deal with today incorporates the amendments adopted by this body in an effort to address the committee bill, empowering States through a pilot program to engage able-bodied individuals in TANF-type work, ending SNAP eligibility for convicted murderers and pedophiles and rapists--not their children, not their spouses, but they, themselves. Language allowing the States to very clearly use drug testing as a part of their SNAP application process was adopted by a majority of the votes on this floor, those items. And now it includes language that came out of the leader's working group, things that deal with what we refer to as ``able-bodied adults without dependents,'' ABAWDs.

That first committee draft, reform to the tune of about $20 billion. Many of the things on the floor would have added to that, perhaps not substantially. And in the working group's language, an additional $20 billion in reform. That presents us with the bill that we're looking at today, with virtually everybody's ideas and reform rolled into one, a substantial amount of savings in a single bill to reform.

I would say this to all of my colleagues: you're going to vote your conscience today. You understand the bill, each and every one of you. You understand, I think from your perspective, the policy implications. I happen to believe that the items in this bill are of sufficient merit to be discussed in a conference committee; potentially, if the conference would agree, to incorporate them in a final conference committee report. But that discussion cannot take place if this bill is not passed.

Remember, if this bill is not passed and we go to conference, there are no instructions for reform from the House in effect. And what was one of the fundamental points that I and my colleagues in the Ag Committee discussed as we started this process a long time ago? There would be reforms in all parts of the next farm bill--commodity title, conservation title, nutrition title. There would be the implementation of changes based on our experiences and our learning from the last farm bill and series of farm bills.

I know you're going to vote your conscience; but I ask you, let me go to conference with the Senate with the maximum number of options to work through because, ultimately, whatever comes out of that conference has to be a comprehensive farm bill. It has to address our ability to raise the food and fiber safety net. It has to address the safety net that affects all of our consumers.

I will simply close by saying this: as I said at the beginning of this debate, it should not be this hard to pass a bill to make sure that the consumers in this country and around the world have enough to eat. It shouldn't be this hard, but everything seems to be hard these days. So let's do the hard things. Let's get our work done. Let's go to conference. Let's put a final bill together. Let's fulfill our responsibilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to focus my time in the general debate, and that's still my intention. The rule debate historically, as we all know in this body, is more of a partisan discussion, generally less focused on the details of the bill than the intensity of the process or the perspective by which the next action takes place. I understand that.

But I would say to my friends, and I will go into greater detail on this in just a little bit, remember what you are about to vote on, a rule to enable us to proceed to a vote entails, is consideration of a bill that took two markups over 2 years in committee, where 100 amendments were considered in both markups, a process by which a bill to the floor a couple of weeks ago subject to another 100 amendments, tremendous debate, tremendous discussion, yet a bill that could not quite get the muster of both the left and the right.

So we wound up a little short in the middle. What you're voting on today is the farm bill farm bill. It's what a lot of the folks back home have said for years they want: consider every issue on its own merit. Well, now, we're about to vote for a rule that will make that possible.

But in the farm bill farm bill, we achieve savings in the commodity title, do away with the direct payments, that thing that's caused such great angst--people getting money for not doing anything. That's gone, a substantial number of billions of dollars in savings.

Now, the committee had the spirit to believe that every part of the existing farm bill policy should save resources, so we save money in the conservation title, $6 billion. We consolidate programs. We refocus.

I would say to all my friends on the floor, vote for the rule. Give us a chance to proceed to the bill so that we can consider a farm bill farm bill.

I can assure all of you that I have given my word to the members of the Rules Committee, to Members on each side of this Chamber that the committee will work hard to achieve a consensus on a nutrition bill. I don't know what kind of a consensus that will be yet. It probably won't satisfy both of my friends on each side of the room to the extreme.

But we, in good faith, did our work. Give us a chance to consider the merits of our reform-minded bill. Give us a chance, then, to address the nutrition title. Let the place work. Let the place work.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding some time to me. I ask my colleagues to vote for this.

I would tell you, if anything, part of the biggest problem with the bill 2 weeks ago was we saved money everywhere; and for some reason, no one ever wants to give anything up in this place.

Sometimes you have to have reform. Sometimes you have to do things differently. But at least the Ag Committee chose to make the reforms across our jurisdiction, to make everybody have a stake in the savings.

I know that's contrary to how the place works; but for one time, maybe, this session, or this day, or this year, or this decade, let's try it the old way. Let's try and look at the issue. Let's try to be fair and equitable to everyone, and let's do the legislative work to get, ultimately, to where we need to be.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 295, I call up 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.

The bill before us includes 11 of the 12 titles of H.R. 1947 as amended on the House floor last month. To recap, we adopted over 60 amendments in an open process. This bill gives taxpayers nearly $20 billion in savings from mandatory Federal spending. It's the most significant reduction to farm policy in history and further improves agricultural programs so that producers have a true safety net that is triggered only when they suffer significant losses.

The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by USDA, including direct payments to farmers. The bill also repeals outdated and unworkable permanent law and replaces it with the cost- effective and market-oriented provisions in title I going forward. This provides certainty to farmers and ranchers and eliminates the threat of government quotas and government price support levels based on 1938 and 1949 agricultural practices and economic conditions.

This bill includes multiple regulatory relief provisions, making it the largest regulatory relief bill to be voted on this year.

This process began 4 years ago when then-Chairman Peterson led us into the countryside to have eight field hearings across the Nation. We followed up with three more sets of hearings, including audits of every single policy under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee. The result is the legislation that reduces the Federal footprint and makes commonsense reforms to policy.

It's no secret, my friends, that my preference would have been to pass H.R. 1947--the full farm bill--last month, but that didn't happen. We are here today with another opportunity. Today is a step towards getting a 5-year farm bill on the books this year. We can't lose sight of our responsibility to do this work.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say this: If you're serious about reducing billions of dollars in mandatory government spending, then vote for the bill. If you're serious about reducing the size and the cost of the Federal Government, vote for the bill. If you're serious about providing regulatory relief to farmers and small businesses all across rural America, then vote for the bill. If you're serious about making sure every American has a safe, affordable, reliable food supply, then vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of my prime subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 1 minute to the other Mr. Scott from Georgia, one of the chairmen of the primary subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Austin Scott.

Mr. Speaker, once again I turn to one of the outstanding subcommittee chairmen who has jurisdiction over Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, and yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I and the ranking member have remaining in the debate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note to my colleague that I have no additional speakers and that I reserve the rest of my time to close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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. 2642.

Mr. Speaker, I'd note to my colleague, I have one additional 1-minute speaker, and then I'll reserve the rest of my time for myself.

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

I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for an inquiry of my colleague, the ranking member.

Does the gentleman need sufficient time to close?

In the spirit of comity, I yield to my ranking member 2 minutes for his use.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I stand before you again to discuss a farm bill. It has not been that many days ago since we did this very thing. On that particular day, it was my hope that the bill put forth on the floor--after 100 amendments, approximately, in committee, after 100 amendments essentially being filed and mostly considered on the floor of the House--that we would have a product we could all support. But on that day, a sufficient number of my friends from both sides of the aisle, from different political perspectives, united together to say no.

Now, I chair the committee of primary jurisdiction on this. I'm a member of the majority. My good friend was my coauthor on the bill. But I take responsibility. That was my chin that got bopped, and maybe it needed it. But I take that responsibility.

But I am a practical guy. I sat down and I had conversations with as many of you as possible and reached out to everyone I could possibly reach out to, and I came to the realization that I had to think outside the box. Because, after all, what's the most important responsibility here? To get our work done in a dignified, orderly fashion, to consider the opinions of everyone--yes, protect the right of the political minority, whoever that may be, in whichever session of Congress that may be--but still, for the majority of the body to decide the actions of this House. And yes, on that day, the majority of you decided no action was the response.

So now I come back asking you again to consider a bill. Eleven of the 12 titles we debated and discussed and rumbled and argued and cheered about 2 weeks ago, 11 of those titles. Yes, some of you saw it in committee; yes, the rest of you saw it on the floor.

Now, there is one change, and that is going from 1938, 1949 permanent law over to making whatever the ultimate product of this farm bill process this year is the permanent law.

Let me say to you, think about what the '38 and '49 law is all about. Franklin Roosevelt was President in 1938; Harry Truman was President in 1949. That's been a long time ago. The principles of the bill entail supply and management, allotments, quotas, production history limitations, prices based on parity from 1910 to 1913. Wasn't Taft President back then? It is not workable language.

I know many of you said, that's the hammer with which we force things to happen. Well, the hammer hasn't worked very well in the last 2 years, has it? It is time to move past that old paradigm, to craft good, agricultural policy for rural America for the consumers out there and make it the permanent law. And, yes, we can pass the new farm bill in 5 years if we want or sooner, but everything will be up to debate, discussion, and voting.

Now, what about title IX that was in the previous bill that's not in the bill today dealing with nutrition? It became quite clear to me not many days ago that that was the most complicated part of the process. It was an area where while the committee had by majority vote agreed to make very fundamental changes saving to the tune of $20.5 billion in mandatory spending, it became quite clear to me that a number of my friends in all sincerity felt it was far too draconian, far too extreme; and I accept that.

By the same token, I had a substantial number of my colleagues who said, oh, my goodness, why couldn't you do more, we demand more; and I couldn't reconcile those two perspectives in this comprehensive bill in this traditional way.

So what's the alternative? I ask you today to vote for a farm bill farm bill. What an amazing concept. All of you who represent farmers and ranches, the men and women who raise the food and fiber, who get things done in this country, when you go talk to them, they say, why didn't we do that all along.

But the nutrition title, let me give you my personal pledge. The committee will work in as bipartisan a fashion as I hope we have traditionally always have to craft language.

My only problem is, having dealt with this issue already, I can't guarantee you what the product will look like coming out of committee or coming across the floor. I can't guarantee that.

But I can assure you that in the committee it will be a fair and open process. I can assure you that you will be able to state your will on this floor.

Hopefully, if 218 of us can agree on a nutrition title, then the two bills can hopefully be wedded, matched--a conference is the more appropriate phrase to say--with the work of our friends over in the Senate and we will ultimately have a product. I just can't give you the kind of guarantees you need because I have to have 218 of you agree on anything. But I can give you my commitment to work in that direction.

I know there are some very grave concerns. What if we don't succeed in passing a nutrition title? What if the Senate says that is your fault, United States House?

I would remind you that SNAP's programs are an appropriated entitlement. That means the issues can be addressed in the appropriations process. That has occurred before. No one ever went without a benefit that they qualified for.

But I would also say to all my friends who care so intensely from every perspective about this bill, that doesn't guarantee you that you will get what you want, any of you. It just means that if we are not able to address nutrition through the regular authorizing process, our friends on the Appropriations Committee, the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, in particular, now become the front-line discussion. But once again, the House will work its will through the committee process and across the floor.

If you see a common thread here, it is that I have amazing amounts of faith in you. In spite of the challenges that outside groups from all political perspectives present, in spite of the diversity of opinion within elected leadership on both sides of the aisle--I know you are fond of me because of the way you've been treating me, all of you, lately--but in spite of those actions, my friends, and because you have a responsibility to your constituents as Members and to our fellow citizens in the country as a whole, I respect what you think.

I would simply conclude by saying, in the situation we are in right now, this I believe very sincerely is the most appropriate way to pass a bill that entails 20 percent of traditional farm bill spending. I commit to you that we will work on that second piece as hard and as diligently as we can. But please, after all the good faith and discussions in the spirit of comity, civility, and the nature of making this place work, I ask you to pass the farm bill farm bill so I can begin to work on the nutrition part of the farm bill next.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I love all of you. I yield back whatever time I have to show it.

Mr. Speaker, can I reserve a point of order?

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

What can I say, my friends. We've covered a lot of ground, we discussed a lot of things, we pumped a lot of adrenaline, we focused on a lot of issues. I would simply say to you, today is towards a conclusion and because I'm so very fond of all of you, I simply ask you to reject this motion to recommit, pass the bill, and go home to your families.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am aware of the concern that some of the 1890's are having difficulty meeting the matching requirement under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program. There has been considerable discussion regarding matching fund policies in our research, extension and education programs. This legislation contains several reforms reflective of those discussions and beneficial to the entirety of the land-grant community.

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to allow us the opportunity to work through this issue with USDA and the 1890's Council of Presidents to craft a workable policy under McIntire-Stennis. You have my commitment that we will resolve this issue favorably and will certainly look to the language contained in the Senate legislation as the basis for these discussions.

Madam Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2013.

Hon. Frank Lucas,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Lucas: I am writing to you concerning the

bill H.R. 1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk

Management Act,'' which is expected to be on the floor the

week of June 17, 2013. This legislation includes provisions

in sections 1207 and 1301 that pertain to the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to the

imposition and collection of tariffs on imports of cotton and

sugar. Further, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over all matters that concern raising revenue as

contained in sections 1412 and 1435.

The Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1947 and

the need to move expeditiously. Therefore, the Committee is

willing to forego action on the bill with the understanding

that by doing so, the Committee is not in any way prejudiced

with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives or the

appointment of conferees on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1947, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Madam Chairman, we hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment about moving American companies to Mexico and to Canada. But that has nothing to do with the price of sugar. It has everything to do with labor costs, health care costs, and trying to get every penny out of the American farmer.

Have any of you seen the price of sugar, cakes or cookies plummet over the last few years as sugar prices have decreased by 55 percent? No, you haven't.

You will hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment about the high prices of sugar--so high indeed that restaurants give it away and that you can buy a five-pound bag of sugar for almost nothing. The idea that adopting this amendment is going to somehow create a free market for sugar is ludicrous.

The world sugar market is one of the most distorted markets in the world. Adopting this amendment or even repealing sugar policy would do nothing but subject the U.S. to that distorted

market even more than we are today, cost a lot of farmers their livelihoods, and cost this country an industry with all the jobs and economic activity that go with it. Let's be quite clear, the U.S. is already one of the largest sugar importers in the world.

The second argument is that we are all of a sudden going to have cheaper sugar if we adopt this amendment.

What bothers me the most about this argument is that it was made when sugar prices were 55 percent higher, and it is made just the same when prices are in the tank. How cheap is cheap enough for those who are backing this amendment?

They claim that consumers are being bilked by the high price of sugar, but have any of our colleagues noticed a drop in the price of candy bars as manufacturers faithfully pass along to consumers the savings from a 55 percent drop in sugar prices? Of course not.

Sugar policy has operated at zero cost to the taxpayers for 10 years now. Our farmers are efficient and competitive. Consumers in this country enjoy cheaper sugar than anywhere else in the world, and sugar users enjoy a reliable source of safe sugar.

Candy makers are reporting strong profits as sugar farmers and processors struggle. Neither today's climate nor the climate of 55 percent higher prices was caused by sugar policy. It was caused by conditions in a distorted market. All sugar policy does is provide a low-level safety net so farmers can repay their loan principal plus interest and farm another day.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the Agriculture Committee from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

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

Colleagues, the process of crafting this farm bill has entailed much effort by the committee. We've looked at everything within our jurisdictions. We've come up with ways of saving money and reforming things and making things more efficient across the board in every title. Let me touch, for just a moment, on the nutrition title.

The committee agreed to $20.5 billion in savings: ending categorical eligibility, compelling States to the tune of $8 billion worth of savings to make adjustments in how they address LIHEAP. We have gone a tremendous distance in a bipartisan way to achieve the first real reform since 1996.

Now, I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to try and increase those savings, but I say to you that the number in the bill is workable, that it is something that we can achieve, that it is something through which I believe--and we don't all necessarily see eye to eye on this--we will still allow those folks who are qualified under Federal law to receive the help they need, that they deserve.

Please turn this amendment back. Please move forward with the reforms we have. Let's do things that we've not been able to do since 1996. Let's not go so far that nothing is the end result. Defeat the amendment. Support the bill. Let us move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the points made by the good lady, but I would like to take this time to discuss for just a moment the process that we've gone through here and the nature of what we are trying to do in crafting another 5-year comprehensive farm bill.

We have gone through the most amazing open process in the House Agriculture Committee 2 years in a row, and we achieved consensus.

The bill this year might not be quite the same as the bill last year, and we have gone through, I think, an open process here on the floor where 103 or 104 amendments were considered by this body in open debate and open discussion and recorded votes in once again trying to achieve a consensus.

I know that not everyone has in this final bill exactly what they want. I know some of my very conservative friends think that it doesn't go far enough in the name of reform. I know some of my liberal friends think it goes too far in the name of addressing the needs of people.

But I would say to all of you that ultimately this body has to do its work. Ultimately, we have to move a product that we can go to conference with. Ultimately, we have to work out a consensus with the United States Senate so that we will have a final document that we can all consider together that hopefully the President will sign into law.

Now, I have tried in good faith, working with my ranking member and each and every one of you in every facet of these issues, to achieve that consensus. I have tried, and I hope that you recognize and acknowledge that.

We're at this critical moment. Whether you believe the bill has too much reform or not enough, or you believe it cuts too much or it doesn't cut enough, we have to move this document forward to achieve a common goal, to meet the needs of our citizens. No matter what part of the country, no matter whether they produce the food or consume the food, we have to meet those common needs in a responsible fashion.

I plead to you, I implore you to put aside whatever the latest email is or the latest flyer is or whatever comment or rumor you've heard from people near you or around you. Assess the situation. Look at the bill. Vote with me to move this forward. If you care about the consumers, the producers, the citizens of this country, move this bill forward. If it fails today, I can't guarantee you that you will see in this session of Congress another attempt, but I would assure each and every one of you, whether it's the appropriations process or amendments to other bills, the struggles will go on, but it won't be done in a balanced way.

If you care about your folks, if you care about this institution, if you care about utilizing open order, vote with us, vote with me on final. If you don't, when you leave here they'll just say it's a dysfunctional body, a broken institution full of dysfunctional people.

That's not true. You know that's not true.

Cast your vote in a responsible fashion. That's all I can ask.

Thank you, my friends. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1947, pursuant to House Resolution 271, amendment No. 55, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, may be considered out of sequence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed 5 legislative days to add additional material.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, the changes made to SNAP are directed at reducing fraud, not at those in true need. And affecting inefficiencies that we've been dealing with for years, we have a chance to affect those inefficiencies right now in this year's farm bill, not 5 years from now.

Without the changes proposed by the committee, and made with bipartisan support, Congress tells the American people that taxpayers should support fraudulent payments. Are we seriously debating a 2 percent reduction that centers on fraud elimination and ensuring that those we help actually qualify?

This farm bill eliminates advertising for food stamps, eliminates recruitment bonuses and payments to lottery winners, all of which divert funds away from the program's actual goal. Any individual can apply or reapply by simply meeting the income and asset requirements. These are simple, commonsense reforms that save taxpayers billions and continue to protect those truly in need. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Dr. Yoho).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains on both sides on this amendment.

That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that reform had to be achieved across the board.

We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition title.

We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens.

How did we do that?

Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps. We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you qualify.

Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are, but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps.

Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of automatic food stamps.

We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8 billion.

We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help.

We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help those who need the help.

Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated?

I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork,

they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify.

But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5 billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall FARRM Bill.

It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most difficult of circumstances.

I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend in other places.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition.

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

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

If Mr. Gibbs is willing, I'd like to request that he withdraw his amendment with my commitment that we would continue to work on these issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented farm bill.

I yield to the gentleman for any response he might have.

I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady and simply want to note for the record that I support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. We should all vote for it.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.

I appreciate the intent of the gentlelady's amendment, which is obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible has been my focus from the very beginning.

That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent.

Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment, farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100 percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need it the most.

I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points:

Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC, they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves.

Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market.

And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be implemented. Every crop is on its own marketing year and every State has a slightly different growing season. Administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. It will tie USDA in knots.

I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's just not use it for this experiment.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have the greatest respect for my good colleague from Minnesota, but at the present time and in the present set of circumstances, I must, in good faith, oppose his amendment. I believe he is very sincere in his efforts, but, again, I must oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.

I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it. There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how to do that.

Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different amendment.

I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I, too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a systematic way about it.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I simply want to note, as being an Oklahoman, I have an appreciation for drought issues, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important topic to our attention. I think we should all vote for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

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

I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern. I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32 million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set- aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted initiatives.

I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining and eliminating duplicative programs. The result, I believe, is a fair, balanced, and flexible conservation title that addresses the natural resource concerns of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. However, the gentleman's amendment seeks to undo this balance by stripping the EQIP program of the authorities that make it unique.

The EQIP program is arguably the most successful conservation program administered by the NRCS. Through cost share assistance, these programs help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, State, and local environmental regulations.

Known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers depend on EQIP for assistance to build waste storage facilities, eliminate nutrient runoff, and purchase equipment like methane digesters.

The gentleman's amendment would fundamentally change EQIP with arbitrary limits that would reduce livestock producers' participation and restrict the types of conservation programs that could be implemented. With EPA and environmental groups targeting livestock operations, we should not diminish the program's current authorities.

The amendment would make EQIP no different than any other working lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The chair would just note to the gentleman that I think he's got a very interesting concept here. Clearly, we need to talk more about this as we go along. But if my ranking member would nod his head over there, I certainly would be willing to accept this amendment.

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

I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

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

I appreciate the endeavor of the delegation from Colorado. I understand they're dealing with very challenging circumstances out there. I'm not necessarily sure this is the final form this language should be in, but I would suggest to my colleagues that we support them and that we pass this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I appreciate the gentlelady's very sincere interest, and of course our colleague Congressman Hastings' work and concern about pollinator health. He has been a champion on these issues for quite some time.

While we are all aware of the need for Federal cooperation in addressing the issues related to pollinators, I believe this amendment is costly and duplicative.

I am likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority granted to the Secretary to implement new policies without the necessary statutory structure to direct the Secretary's agenda.

I am aware that several constituent groups have raised concerns since this language first surfaced last month as a proposed Boxer amendment to the Senate farm bill, but as yet, few, if any, have had a chance to clearly evaluate it, and none have had a chance to be heard in a hearing process to evaluate their concerns.

I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues otherwise. I would like to work with the both the lady and the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a mutually desirable outcome to address this. When I say ``I'm concerned about the authority given to the Secretary,'' in the language it says:

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry out such activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect and ensure long-term viability of populations.

``Determine.'' I just have concerns about the nature of this language. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 1\3/4\ minutes to Mr. Green of Texas.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of the subcommittee chairmen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), a State with the most amazingly diverse agriculture.

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

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

The Emerging Markets Program, EMP, provides funding for technical assistance to aid public and private agricultural organizations in their efforts to improve market opportunities in low- and middle-income nations that offer viable markets for our U.S. commodities.

This program truly focuses on promoting U.S. products to build repeat customers in markets where incomes are growing to the point that they can import high-quality products. Program resources may only be used to broadly support export of U.S. commodities and products, and promoting a company's own branded product is strictly prohibited.

The Emerging Markets Program requires the participating entities to commit a portion of their own resources to seek export opportunities in emerging markets, and a priority is given to the applications which bring the greatest amount of cost-share funds to the project.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of studies about the amount of dollars that this generates in U.S. agricultural exports. It's one of those things that helps us move into markets that have the potential and the growing potential to buy our products. I believe it is a good use of resources, and it's subject, of course, to the oversight of the appropriators.

I would ask my colleagues to reject the amendment rather respectfully; and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I would just note to the gentlelady I think by the expression on my ranking member's face we both agree this is a good- faith effort to try to make something happen. Therefore we would accept the language.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would note to my good friend and colleague that I think he is involved here in a good government measure, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the program specifically designed for plant products.

Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of critical programs.

Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must respectfully request that we oppose the amendment.

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

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

There is a difference, I think, in the way that the act was created between animals and plants. I think this is an issue certainly that we need to address and look at, but in the context that it is put here, I don't think that this is an appropriate amendment. I would simply ask my colleagues in a very respectful fashion to decline this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction, Mr. Conaway of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield to myself, Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes.

The ranking member makes very valid points. When you look at the way Federal crop insurance works, it shifts the risk from the Treasury to the private companies to the reinsurers to the farmers and ranchers. If you look at how these premiums and payments have gone over the last decade--not just the really tough weather last year--you'll find that, in reality, 70 percent of the policies over the last 10 years have not returned one single penny--70 percent.

And if you look at how the program has worked in the 7 years prior to the onset of the drought of 2011, basically the Federal Government actually made money on Federal crop insurance. Now, I can't help the anomaly that the superdrought was in the Midwest. But I can tell you that's a pretty good track record.

The ranking member is entirely right: it works. Let's not mess up something that works. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I yield myself whatever time I may have yet.

I would just simply say to my colleagues, the system works. As my colleague also noted, it is critically important that farmers be able to secure their financing. And while ultimately like most provisions in the FARRM Bill that raise the food and fiber, the consumers at the end of the chain benefit from the highest quality, most affordable price of food and fiber in the history of the world.

Please protect this important resource to production agriculture. Please continue it to enable farmers to farm. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 271, I offer the following amendments en bloc which I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Will the gentleman yield?

I would say to the ranking member that of course I will work with and cooperate with the ranking member in the minority. We have accomplished so much together in that spirit, and I would be happy to continue to on those particular issues of concern.

In closing, I just offer the observation that this en bloc amendment will move us substantially towards completion. I believe we'll continue to work longer this evening. But most assuredly I think now--and the ranking member would probably agree--that it's possible to meet our departure deadline tomorrow, thank goodness.

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

Mr. Benishek, I appreciate you yielding to me.

The gentleman's amendment, by requiring FDA to conduct scientific and economic analysis prior to enforcing these regulations, is a step in the right direction. Simply put, it is a step in the right direction. I commend him and support his amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding just to note that the ranking member and I have discussed your amendment, and we are supportive.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly the gentleman is working diligently to do good things; and, therefore, I would be supportive of his amendment.

I thank the subcommittee chairman and, once again, outstanding working being done.

I would encourage all of our fellow Members of this great body to vote for your wonderful amendment.

This is clearly a very important issue and the gentleman has made great headway on it. Thank you for those efforts. Of course I'm very supportive of what you're endeavoring to do.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me state the persuasive powers of the gentlelady are to be much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared. While perhaps not every syllable of her amendments in their present form do I necessarily agree with, I am supportive. I believe she is on the right vein, and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal.

That said, though, I must also express my appreciation to all my colleagues, to the professional staff of both the majority and the professional staff of the minority.

When we started this process earlier, I noted to all of you that I felt like if we would work this in regular order, if we would have discussion and amendment and great debate, we could achieve consensus.

Now, we have approximately five more amendments to go tomorrow. We will conclude this experience on time--hurray--and I believe in a fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means I think we'll pass the bill, but we shall see tomorrow.

That said, thank you all. This is the way the process is supposed to work.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 9 a.m.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.

This bipartisan bill is 4 years in the making, and I could not have had a better partner than my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

He began this process 4 years ago when he led us into the countryside to have eight field hearings across this great Nation. We followed up those field hearings with a series of 11 audit hearings on every single policy under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture.

In all, we held 40 hearings on every aspect of this FARRM Bill. The result is legislation that calls for reduced spending, smaller government, and commonsense reform.

The committee has held two markups of this essential bill, the first, last Congress, and one last month. Both of those markups lasted for more than 12 hours each. We considered over 200 amendments in total. In the end, we achieved a large bipartisan margin of support. The vote tally this year was 36-10, with 23 out of 25 Republicans and 13 out of 21 Democrats supporting it.

Some of my colleagues were amazed by the duration of the markup; but I came to Congress to legislate, and an important part of the legislative process is an open and fair debate. The Speaker shares that sentiment, and I hope during the debate of the amendments to the FARRM Act, we'll let the body work its will, then we'll vote for final passage.

The FARRM Act is different for many reasons. There is a reason that we put reform in the title. This is the most reform-minded bill in decades. It repeals outdated policies, while reforming, streamlining, and consolidating over 100 government programs.

It reforms the SNAP Act, also known as the food stamp program, for the first time since the welfare reforms of 1996; and it makes tremendous reforms to the farm programs.

The Agriculture Committee and the agriculture community have voluntarily worked together to make these reforms and to contribute to deficit reduction. Every part of this bill is a part of the solution to Washington's spending problems. We save the American taxpayer nearly $40 billion, which is almost seven times the amount of cuts to these programs under sequestration.

Regarding reforms to traditional farm programs, first of all, we eliminate direct payments. They cost taxpayers $5 billion a year. They were payments that people received every year, regardless of the market conditions and whether or not they farmed.

Instead, we take a more market-oriented approach to policy, where there is no support when market prices are high. We encourage responsible risk management where farmers are able to plan for catastrophic events.

In addition to eliminating direct payments, we repeal the ACRE Act, the disaster program for crops, and the countercyclical program. My philosophy from the beginning of the FARRM Bill process has been that these programs had to be based on market economies. They had to work for

all crops in all regions of the country. Our bill achieves this, while also saving $23 billion, which is a record 36 percent spending reduction.

In conservation, a subject near and dear to my heart, we streamline the delivery of these incredibly important programs. During our hearings, we learned that conservation programs had grown in number and complication, often acting as a deterrent for the adoption of these voluntary, incentive-based programs. Therefore, the FARRM Act eliminates and consolidates 23 duplicative and overlapping programs into 13, which saves nearly $7 billion.

We authorize and strengthen and fully pay for livestock disaster assistance that is incredibly important to our livestock producers during devastating droughts, such as the ones we're experiencing recently.

The bill invests in core specialty crop initiatives like Specialty Block Grants, Plant Pest and Disease Management programs; and the FARRM Act also maintains our investment in agricultural research.

You know, my friends, I've had a lot of my colleagues ask me, Frank, why do you get so excited about these issues? Why do you get so stirred up? You're usually a pretty calm, laid-back fellow.

Well, let me tell you, I come from a part of the country that was the abyss of the Great Depression and the drought of the 1930s. Some of you may have seen Mr. Burns' documentary about the Dust Bowl. Those are my constituents. Those were my relatives in Roger Mills County, as well as the panhandle.

I was raised by a generation, my grandparents, who were young men and women during the Great Depression, who lived through that drought. They were scarred forever.

My maternal grandfather cosigned my first farm lease, cosigned my note at the bank so that I could start farming. But he was convinced, till the day he died, just as my other grandfather was, the Great Depression was coming back; it was coming back.

My parents were young men and women in the fifties, and they went through the drought of the fifties, far worse than the drought of the thirties. To the day he died, my father was convinced that it would never rain again.

And I came home from college in 1982 just in time to observe the collapse in agricultural land prices. I was raised by the generation that suffered through the thirties and the fifties.

I came home to watch the Vietnam generation be destroyed, farmers be destroyed by things beyond their control in the early 1980s. That's why I get so worked up on this policy.

The misery of the thirties, the misery of the eighties, economically, was not an accident. It was policy mistakes in the twenties and thirties that led to that agony. It was policy mistakes in the seventies and eighties that led to that agony.

Now, you say, Frank, you're excited, you're getting worked up. Look at the 1930 census for Roger Mills County. There were 14,000 people living in my home county. By the 1940 census there were 7,000 people living in my home county. And we've just now made it back to the mid- 3,000s.

You don't have that kind of economic devastation, depopulation, suffering by accident. And that's why I'm here; that's why I'm working with my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Peterson. That's why I've worked with Republicans, Democrats alike for years now to get to this point. That's why I want to work with all of you.

I cannot make it rain. There may be people in this town who say they can make it rain, but I cannot make it rain. But in my tenure as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I can make sure we pass a comprehensive FARRM Bill that does not repeat the mistakes of the 1920s and -30s, does not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s and -80s.

I will not be a part of inflicting on future generations what was inflicted on what I call that generation of Vietnam veterans who came home to farm and, instead, went to the bankruptcy auctions, or my grandparents' generation, whose young men and women were wiped out in the 1930s. I will not be a part of that.

So I will work with all of you to try and improve this draft that attempts to produce a safety net that is workable, that is efficient, both for rural America and producers, but also for consumers.

I ask you to work with me in that regard. I ask you to do the right thing. I ask you to avoid the mistakes of the past. I ask you to look at the language, to study the language, and be good, responsible legislators.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Subcommittee Chairman Conaway from the great State of Texas.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a subcommittee chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Washington State, Doc Hastings.

I recognize the gentleman from Washington's concerns about the one-size-fits-all approach of the FDA. In fact, this was among the several concerns we raised during debate in the House when the Food Safety Modernization Act was under consideration.

I share his belief that, if the FDA is going to be given the task of telling farmers how to farm, it should do so after a thorough examination of the risks of the different types of fruits and vegetables and then, based on the best available science, consider the growing methods and the conditions of individual commodities when developing regulations.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would encourage the FDA to reevaluate the proposed regulations, including docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921-0001, and make the necessary revisions to ensure that they meet this purpose.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a home of amazingly diverse agriculture, Mr. LaMalfa.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chair, I would note that I am the last speaker and would conclude, and would ask if the gentleman would yield me an extra minute or two.

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

Madam Chair, we've heard some very good debate this evening about the merits and the challenges that we face in putting this bipartisan bill together. I'd like to take just a moment to focus on the nutrition title and the spirit and the logic that went into crafting this.

The focus of the committee was that the savings should be achieved across all areas of the farm bill, and that $40 billion, approximately, we have saved does achieve savings in the commodity title, the conservation title, as well as the nutrition title. Everybody under the jurisdiction of the farm bill contributes to the reforms.

Now, in the nutrition title for just a moment, I just want to stress to my colleagues the committee tried to achieve savings in a way that would not deny an individual who was qualified under present law by income or assets from receiving help. We just simply say in the committee draft that things like automatic food stamps, categorical eligibility, something that's evolved out of the 1996 welfare reform, we simply say everybody needs to show they qualify, and we'll help you.

The LIHEAP program, where States in some cases give as little as $1 to help their citizens pay their home heating costs that triggers a whole month's worth of food stamps, we say in the bill: States, you've got to give $20 to trigger that.

The goal of the committee was never to work hardship on anyone. The goal of the committee, in a time of $16 trillion national debt, annual trillion-dollar deficits, was to achieve savings across the board. But it requires that the folks who need help come in and demonstrate they qualify. If you don't like the asset level or the income level, that's a different debate. We just simply say if you need the help, show us you qualify and we'll help you. That's a $20.5 billion savings, according to CBO. Will that be the way it's implemented? I don't know. But we operate by CBO scores, and there's almost $40 billion in overall savings in all areas of the farm bill.

I would challenge all my friends, if every other committee in every other jurisdiction would achieve these kinds of savings across the board, we'd be in a different situation with our operating annual deficit.

The Ag Committee has done its work, and we've done it in a thoughtful way. Help us over the course of the next few days with the amendment process. Don't, by affection, offer amendments simply to prevent the process from happening. Don't do things that are intended not to make the bill a better piece of legislation, but to prevent it. Be good legislators; be thoughtful legislators. Do what's right, whether it's to help the people raise the food, or that other part of our society that needs help on a month-to-month basis. Do them all right. I have faith in you. I believe through good debate and good discussion on good amendments, perfections will be made. A consensus will be achieved. We'll move forward. I have faith in you, my colleagues.

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

Madam 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. 1947.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

[Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 232 the following report was

filed on May 29, 2013:]

Mr. LUCAS: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 1947. A bill 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 an amendment;

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for a period

ending not later than June 7, 2013 for consideration of such

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the

jurisdiction of those committees pursuant to clause 1(i) of

rule x; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a

period ending not later than June 7, 2013 for consideration

of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within

the jurisdiction of those committees pursuant to clause 1(l)

of rule x. (Rept. 113-92, Part I). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, as you're all well aware, it's been a tough week in the Southwest. In particular, it's been a tough few days in the Fourth District of Oklahoma.

Today, I rise to first thank you for your prayers and your thoughts and your good will, but I note also the tornado that rolled through Congressman Tom Cole's district in Oklahoma, from Newcastle through Moore and across the southern part of Oklahoma City. Congressman Cole is not with us today because he is still in Oklahoma, addressing the needs of and working with his fellow citizens and community members as they try to put themselves back together after this strike by an F-5 tornado.

Moore is particularly important to our colleague, Congressman Cole, because not only does he represent the community, but he was raised there, two generations of his family buried in the cemetery there. So it's a community that's important to him in many, many ways.

That said, the good folks in Moore and the other communities will, over the coming days, pull themselves back together. They'll finish sifting through every pile of rubble; they'll have made a determination that there's no one left to be saved, as they work frantically to try to do that; and they'll begin the process of laying to rest those who were lost and put their entire community back together.

While many folks are well aware of the importance of FEMA and the Federal response, Moore is a classic example--and this could be any community in the United States--of where, in the greatest tragedy, the most tragic loss of life, city government, county government, and State government come together to work seamlessly to help those in need and to recover those beyond help.

We in the Oklahoma delegation and our friends in the Texas delegation appreciate everything that you have and you will help do in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the gentleman who represents part of that area and just to the north, Oklahoma City, the great Fifth District of Oklahoma, Congressman Lankford.