Floor Statements

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlelady from Tennessee's attempt at reform here. In fact, the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee last Congress accomplished the goal of her amendment by preventing USDA from promoting the SNAP program.

Our goal in Congress should not be getting more people on the SNAP rolls. Instead, we should be providing opportunities through increased economic growth and programs that facilitate upward movement, upward mobility to get people off the rolls.

I pledge to work with the gentlelady to include language in the farm bill we intend to bring to the floor later this year to accomplish her goals.

I thank her for her efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing, pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on January 23, 2013.

Apendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission.

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

It's no secret we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. We're at the $16 trillion mark in debt piled up. If we don't act quickly, we'll be passing a crushing burden along to our children and grandchildren. Reducing government spending is never an easy task. We face difficult choices, but House Republicans have lived up to our responsibilities to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again live within our means.

The Agriculture Committee did its part by finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. We did this by making credible, commonsense reforms to the supplemental assistance program, SNAP--food stamps if you want to call it that. These provisions reduce waste and abuse and close program loopholes.

I'd like to make it absolutely clear that none of these recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under SNAP from receiving those benefits. Think about that. All they have to do is demonstrate their income level, demonstrate their asset level, fill out their paperwork, qualify, and they will receive their benefits. We're working hard to better target the program and improve its integrity so that families in need can continue to receive nutrition assistance.

Every one of these provisions represents common sense and good government in times of fiscal restraint. I would also like to note that the policies included in this bill are not the

only changes that the House Agriculture Committee has passed that would cause deficit reduction. In July, the Ag Committee passed a comprehensive farm bill by a strong bipartisan vote, a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. The bill will save $35 billion in the agricultural baseline. Our bill makes reforms to commodity programs, conservation programs, as well as significant reforms to the food stamp program.

My committee is doing everything it can to provide a variety of options for all sides and all parties to consider. We've made workable reforms to all programs within our jurisdiction, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. We want to be a part of the solution. We have proven time and time again we're willing to do our part.

Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt these reforms. Yes, it means you'll have to apply. Yes, it means you'll have to demonstrate your assets and your income. But if you're qualified, you will receive the help you need. You just have to demonstrate you need the help. Is that unreasonable?

With a $16 trillion deficit--is that unreasonable?--and with a $1 trillion annual spending deficit? Demonstrate you need the help and we'll help you. That's not unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3552) to reauthorize the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support of S. 3552, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012, and recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

I want to first thank my colleague, the Ranking Member for his assistance with this legislation. This bill has been included in the Agriculture Committee reported farm bill which we hope to consider in due course.

While there are many USDA-related programs reauthorized in the committee legislation, this one is among a small list of anomalies in that it is a program administered by the EPA. Additionally, the absence of this reauthorization would necessitate significant increases in appropriations to cover the shortfall, as well as risk the imposition of exorbitant costs on our constituents further jeopardizing an already abysmal economic recovery.

The original Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, PRIA, was a landmark law enacted on January 23, 2004. Congress reauthorized PRIA, now known as ``PRIA 2'', for another five years on October 9, 2007. PRIA reinvented EPA's procedures for processing applications for pesticide registrations and other related actions, including establishing specific timelines with corresponding fee schedules.

Under PRIA 1, the Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs was required to process applications within timeframes specified for each of the 50 categories of registration actions. That number has since increased, and would be set at 189 under the proposed reauthorization.

PRIA retained and increased the product maintenance fees that support re-registration and tolerance reassessment authorized under the Food Quality Protection Act. Pesticide registrants paid $110 million in maintenance fees during the authorization of PRIA and registrants are scheduled to pay $139 million in maintenance fees for the five year period to be covered by the proposed ``PRIA 3.''

PRIA established a prohibition against the collection of other registration fees, as distinct from registration service fees, authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. PRIA also suspended the Agency's authority to collect tolerance fees which had been authorized by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA.

In the absence of this reauthorization, substantially higher fees whose authority is suspended by this legislation would be collected with the revenue going directly to the U.S. Treasury where it would be unavailable to EPA's Pesticide Program. This would necessitate the discretionary appropriation of new funds to carry out pesticide review activities and eliminate the transparency and accountability measures enacted in PRIA which have placed effective checks on the EPA.

The legislation before us today: extends the authority of EPA to collect maintenance fees until 2017; extends the prohibition on collection of other registration and tolerance fees to 2019 and 2017, respectively; establishes a small business cap; allocates funds for EPA to use for the enhancement and improvement of ``IT'' systems for the registration of pesticides and tracking of key information; amends the percentage of maintenance fees devoted to review of inert ingredients; increases registration service fees during the life of PRIA 3 by 2.5 percent; provides that the Administrator shall identify reforms in processing that would allow it to improve decision times beyond those provided for in the Act; and cites new schedule of decision review times.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

General Leave

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 just considered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 752, I call up the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 6233, which provides disaster aid to livestock and other producers.

I am sure all of my colleagues are keenly aware of what is happening all across this great country. A drought of epic proportions is gripping a large majority of the Nation, and it is endangering vast areas of agriculturally productive land. The map behind me illustrates just how widespread and how bad this drought really is. Just yesterday, in my home State of Oklahoma, we had temperatures topping out at 115 degrees. Vast areas of productive pastureland are burning up, and our ranchers are in dire need.

But also let's be very clear as to why we are here on the floor today. In 2008, Congress passed a farm bill that did not provide a final year of disaster assistance. I have heard people call this ``extending disaster assistance by a

year.'' No. What we are doing is fixing a problem. We are backfilling a hole--or fixing a deficiency.

I'm not here to point fingers. I was elected to fix problems. We have a drought. We don't have a disaster program, and I am here to provide a solution. Now, in past years, we might just wave our hands and declare this to be emergency spending, but we tend not to do that anymore, thank goodness. This bill pays for itself. Not only does it pay for itself, but it gives more than $250 million to deficit reduction. To me, that sounds like fixing a problem.

Amazingly, that's not the end of the story.

Some people do not like how we paid for the bill. Quite frankly, I don't either. I was the subcommittee chairman for conservation programs in 2002 when we gave an extra $17 billion to conservation programs. I am a proponent of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs, but let me give you a little history on EQIP funding.

Ten years ago, in fiscal year 2002, we authorized $200 million in EQIP spending. In fiscal year 2009, we authorized $1.34 billion, and for fiscal year 2013, we authorized $1.75 billion. Yes, we are cutting real dollars: $350 million will not go to our farmers and ranchers to help comply with the enormous regulations facing them. But, at the end of the day, this will still be the largest amount of money ever spent on the EQIP program, seven times what we spent in 2002.

The other offset is the CSP program, which was vastly, I might note for the record, improved in 2008. For those of you here in 2008 who voted for the farm bill, the CSP program in the House bill had zero dollars when it left the House. In the just-passed Ag Committee farm bill, we limited CSP to 9 million acres. I greatly respect the conservation community, but to hear them say we are destroying conservation programs could not be farther from the truth.

You will also hear people complain that this isn't the full farm bill. My priority remains to get a 5-year farm bill on the books and to put those policies into place.

But the most pressing business before us today is to provide disaster assistance to those producers impacted by drought conditions who are currently exposed. It is as simple as that. There is a problem out there. Let's fix it.

Let me address the farm bill that my colleagues seem to either love or hate or love to hate or hate to love. The bill is not perfect. No legislation is. We can spend our time trying to chip away at the Federal deficit $1 million at a time, coming down to the floor on every appropriations bill, or we can spend our time writing opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal, or we can do something about it. The farm bill that passed out of my committee, the Agriculture Committee, saves $35 billion. Let me repeat that: $35 billion.

Tell me another piece of legislation that has bipartisan support and a chance to pass the United States Senate that saves that much money. My friends on my side of the aisle will say we don't cut enough while, my friends on the other side of the aisle will say we cut too much. This is the perfect case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I believe in the legislative process. I believe in letting the House work its will. We did it in the House Agriculture Committee, and we can do it here, too.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again: I am committed to giving certainty to our farmers. I plan to work towards the goal when we get back in September, but we are here today to fix a problem. Let's do it without partisan bickering. There's a disaster happening out there. Let's give the tools to our ranchers who are the most exposed. The bill is paid for. Let's do what the American people sent us here to do: fix problems. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 6233.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the most experienced and knowledgeable members of the Ag Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who's been dealing with drought issues for 2 years in a row now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), one of the most active members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of my lead subcommittee chairmen who put a tremendous amount of effort into this farm bill process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) who does very important work for agriculture on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a tireless voice for rural American production of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think the bill we address today is very straightforward. We are going to help a group of producers who, when the '08 farm bill passed, thought they had something they could depend on, but because of budget issues, the 5th year is not funded. We need to help them by fulfilling our commitment that what we said would be there will be there. We do it in a responsible way. We do it in a way that does not truly affect the dollars going to additional conservation programs, based on recent years.

But my colleague's right. This addresses an issue that matters to producers who, for the last 10 months and for the next approximately 2 months, are not able to use a program they thought would be there. But the underlying issue still is passing a comprehensive 5-year farm bill; a farm bill that is such that all commodities and all regions can participate; a farm bill that will provide certainty; a farm bill that will make sure that the food and fiber that meet the needs of American consumers and, yes, consumers around the world can be on the books.

My friend and I have worked very hard, and we have made more progress this year than many pundits would have ever given us credit for, but we're not quite there yet. We may not exactly agree on every footstep to get there, but we agree we have to get there. Let's take care of the folks who are hurting today, and let's work to get that farm bill process completed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 6233, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this room knows that I and my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, and all members of the Agriculture Committee, have worked very aggressively to try to move the process forward to craft a comprehensive 5-year farm bill, a farm bill that addresses all commodity groups, addresses all regions, meets the needs of all of our producers so we can, as farmers and ranchers, meet the needs of the great American consumer.

One of the key points in the motion to recommit before us addresses the question of doing a 5-year farm bill. That's a sense of Congress. I happen to think that that already is the sense of Congress. I would suggest to all of you that if you want, as badly as I want, a comprehensive 5-year farm bill, then the process here is to take these points--they may be valid--but to take these points and bear them in mind. Go home and see your constituents for the next 5 weeks. Go home and discuss the drought in that 65 percent of the United States that's suffering. Go home and explain to them why, from the livestock producers' perspective, there's no assistance in a bill that was promised when it was put together in '08, or they thought they would have access to.

Go home and explain that, and build the momentum to come back here and do the farm bill. Then in regular order, on the floor--I know it's kind of a strange concept--we'll debate these and many more amendments, and we'll make refinements to what the committee has done. But right now, let's reject this motion, and let's go home and prepare for a farm bill debate when we come back. Most importantly, let's just go home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill H.R. 6233.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. While many Americans may not have heard of APHIS, the Agency's mission is so far-reaching that most are touched by its regulatory activities or policies every day. We in the Agriculture Committee understand that when we learned last month of the cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) that it was APHIS' swift response and scientific approach that reassured our trading partners that U.S. beef is safe and kept trade moving. We understand that it is APHIS whose work every day keeps our country free from many invasive insects and diseases like the destructive Mediterranean fruit fly. Every day, we hear and see the positive strides this Agency is making in support of U.S. agriculture.

Since APHIS was formed in 1972, it has evolved into a multi-faceted Agency with responsibilities that include protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health from foreign animal and plant pests and diseases, regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal Welfare Act, and carrying out wildlife damage management activities. To carry out its mission, APHIS employees work to create and sustain opportunities for America's farmers, ranchers and producers and to safeguard the nation's agriculture, fishing and forestry industries. For that, I applaud them and join in celebrating this Agency's history.

During the early 1970s, APHIS was put to the test when it spearheaded an enormous effort to control an outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease in Southern California that threatened the Nation's entire poultry and egg supply.

APHIS mobilized thousands of workers in a response that included an investigation of over 77 million birds, administration of 113 million doses of vaccines, and maintenance of a quarantine zone spanning 45,000 square miles. Success was achieved in 1974 and marked the first time any country had eradicated such a widespread outbreak of the deadly disease, and it provided a blueprint for future animal disease control efforts. Using lessons it learned from the earlier outbreak, APHIS again lead a taskforce of Federal, State, and private veterinarians in 2002 to effectively stamp out an exotic Newcastle disease outbreak in California and other Western States. This time, however, APHIS and its partners eradicated this devastating disease in one-third the time and at one-half the cost of prior outbreaks, protecting the health of the country's poultry resources, worth more than $23 billion.

Through the National Boll Weevil Eradication Program launched in the late 1970s, APHIS and its partners eradicated boll weevil from 16 of 17 cotton-producing States, with the last, Texas nearing completion of its eradication efforts. This three-decade effort has succeeded through the participation and cooperation of industry, State and Federal agriculture agencies, and APHIS in sharing costs and developing and improving eradication strategies to meet every challenge. APHIS continues its myriad of programs dedicated to keeping harmful and invasive plant pests and diseases out of this country and eradicating them quickly should they arrive. Recently, APHIS and its State and industry partners have nearly eliminated European grapevine moth infestations, keeping domestic commerce and foreign markets open for grapes, stone fruit, berries, and other commodities that would otherwise have been threatened by the pest.

APHIS assumed a new mandate for wildlife damage management in 1985, after Congress transferred the Animal Damage Control program from the Department of the Interior to USDA. Through this program, APHIS provides Federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow people and wildlife to coexist. APHIS has provided critical support to U.S. agricultural producers over the years finding practical, humane, effective, and environmentally safe solutions when wildlife attack livestock or damage crops. But the program's impact extends beyond agriculture to urban areas, where they work to reduce wildlife hazards at the Nation's airports and military airbases, eradicate invasive species such as the Giant Gambian rat, and combat wildlife rabies.

APHIS' role in the Federal biotechnology era began in 1986 with the ``Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology,'' which outlined a comprehensive U.S. Government regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products. In November 1987, using new policies for regulating the introduction of genetically engineered organisms that might pose risks to plants, APHIS for the first time approved a field test, for a tobacco resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil. Since then, the Agency has overseen nearly 30,000 field trials at over 86,000 different locations and approved over 80 products for nonregulated status--many of which have subsequently been further developed and released as varieties used in agriculture benefitting farmers and consumers while decreasing overall pesticide use and soil erosion.

APHIS' role in protecting and promoting the health of U.S. agriculture is also critical in the international trade arena. As part of the move to support growth in international trade while fulfilling APHIS' mission to protect American agriculture, APHIS inspectors began preclearing imports destined for the United States before they left their country of origin in the 1980s. APHIS also began employing other approaches to ensure that imported commodities were free of pests and diseases--X-ray detection devices began screening baggage for illegal material, and APHIS' ``Beagle Brigade,'' established in 1984, sniffed out prohibited foods in passenger luggage. Throughout the years, APHIS' ability to quickly respond to outbreaks of foreign plant pests and diseases, helps assure our trading partners that U.S. products are safe and that the United States is a model for protecting the health and abundance of agriculture.

Today, APHIS continues to enhance its animal welfare efforts, overseeing the care and treatment of animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act at licensed and registered facilities throughout the United States and its territories. APHIS' risk based inspection system enables the Agency to focus its resources on the most problematic facilities and pursue enforcement against violators.

Lastly, I applaud APHIS for continuously seeking to work together with its partners and stakeholders to achieve success in its programs. APHIS is an Agency that recognizes that it must actively work with States, Tribal Nations, industry and other stakeholder groups to help manage the many issues that affect U.S. agriculture. This coordinated effort has enabled the Agency to be successful in protecting our valuable agricultural and natural resources. We have seen the results of this approach, for example, as the Agency has implemented the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. This joint effort by APHIS, states, industry, academia, and other stakeholders has yielded great benefits--helping eradicate devastating plant diseases such as Plum Pox in Pennsylvania, increasing surveys to find foreign pests before they can become established in the United States, educating the public on reducing the spread of these pests, and enhancing research so we have better tools to protect our country from threats to our agricultural and natural resources.

As you can see, through the decades, APHIS has continued to modernize in demonstrating its vitality and significance to farmers, exporters and importers, and consumers. APHIS' leadership in protecting and promoting the health of U.S. agriculture has served the United States well. For that, I want to congratulate APHIS and its hard working employees for a highly successful 40 years, and applaud their continued commitment to the American people and U.S. agriculture.

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

It's no secret that we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. We have almost $16 trillion in debt piled up. And if we don't act quickly, we will be passing a crushing burden on to our children and grandchildren.

Reducing government spending, though, is never an easy task. We face difficult choices, but House Republicans have lived up to our responsibility to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again live within our means.

The House Agriculture Committee has been asked to do its part by finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. We did that by making credible, commonsense reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. These provisions reduce waste and abuse and close program loopholes.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, comprises almost 80 percent of the Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending. Over the past 10 years, the cost of SNAP has nearly tripled, increasing by 270 percent. The changes that we're proposing today cut only 4 percent over the next 10 years.

I would like to make it absolutely clear. None of these recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under SNAP from receiving their benefits. We are working to better target the program and improve its integrity so that families in need can continue to receive nutritional assistance.

Opponents of this legislation would have you believe that we are decimating the nutritional safety net and that hungry children and seniors will be left to fend for themselves. That is a false and misleading scare tactic. It's important to remember that many of the very people opposing these cuts proposed and voted for similar measures during the last Congress when they were in control of this body. Not once, but twice my colleagues on the left voted to cut a temporary increase in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. One of those cuts was to pay for the bailout of a union. And now that House Republicans are advocating that same policy, those across the aisle are crying foul.

By ending the artificial increase in SNAP benefits, we can save $5.9 billion over 10 years, and we won't be turning that into more government spending. It will go towards deficit reduction.

This legislation also ends bonuses that have been awarded to States on the taxpayer dime. States are responsible for administering SNAP, and it's their duty to make sure the program is operating in the most efficient and effective fashion. We save nearly $500 million by ending bonuses that are given to States for merely doing their job. We also find savings by closing loopholes that allow States to game the system when administering SNAP.

First, we'll stop States from abusing the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to inflate SNAP benefits. States are exploiting the interaction between LIHEAP and SNAP by sending a token check to households which can trigger hundreds of dollars in increased SNAP benefits. LIHEAP is a valuable program for households in need of assistance with heating and energy costs. It shouldn't be abused in this fashion.

In New York City, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $131 in SNAP benefits per month for nearly 90,000 households. In Washington State, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $43 million in SNAP benefits. That's egregious, and taxpayers know it. These token checks not only undermine the integrity of both SNAP and LIHEAP, but they also cost taxpayers billions of dollars in overpayments. Closing this loophole saves $14.3 billion over 10 years and ensures that both LIHEAP and SNAP are targeted to the families who truly need the assistance.

Another loophole we've closed is called categorical eligibility, which allows any household that receives a benefit from certain low- income assistance programs to become automatically eligible for SNAP. Some of these benefits can be as simple as providing a household with a pamphlet or access to a 1 800 number hotline. When States implement categorical eligibility, these households do not need to meet SNAP or gross income tests. That's how lottery winners slip through the cracks and continue to receive nutrition assistance. When someone is categorically eligible for SNAP, States don't have to verify assets, like lottery winnings.

And it isn't just lottery winners that are unfairly collecting benefits either. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that one woman collecting $500 per month in SNAP benefits had $80,000 in savings, a paid-for home valued at about $300,000, and a Mercedes.

So let me repeat what I said earlier: These provisions do not decimate the program and leave struggling families to fend for themselves. What they do is restore program integrity. They reserve taxpayer dollars for families that are in need of assistance.

Every one of these provisions represents common sense and good government in a time of fiscal restraint.

There's no denying that SNAP provides important support to many Americans.

That's why it's important that we ensure the integrity of the program. Those who qualify for SNAP under the law will continue to receive benefits.

By voting for this package, we're not only doing our part to reduce the debt, we're improving the implementation of this important program while continuing to meet the nutritional needs of our fellow Americans.

I urge my colleagues to put aside the rhetoric and vote for these reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the purpose of joining me in a colloquy.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is exactly right. That is the goal of our language in this bill, and it will be the additional efforts that we will undergo in the comprehensive farm bill that will follow soon.

I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, when we come with our comprehensive farm bill, things that have been identified by many people as a concern, like the direct payments, will not be there. We will address all spending in all portions of the farm bill. We will make reductions in every part of agricultural spending, as we do our part in helping address this huge, tremendous national deficit.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3336) to ensure the exclusion of small lenders from certain regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 3336.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this bill. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee's ranking member, Mr. Peterson, and his staff for their diligent work on this bill on behalf of end-users and small business lenders. We have a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship at the Agriculture Committee, and their work was invaluable. I'd like to thank Representative Hartzler for her leadership on H.R. 3336 on behalf of the small business institutions and the businesses they serve.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Representative Hultgren and Representative Boren, whose legislation, H.R. 3527, will not be considered today. As a result of their leadership and Mr. Peterson's support, many of the critical issues for end-users addressed in H.R. 3527 were resolved by the CFTC in its final ``definitions rule.''

I think we can reasonably feel assured that agricultural cooperatives and other end-users out in the countryside won't be unnecessarily deemed ``swap dealers'' and regulated like the largest financial institutions. As I said from the outset, if the CFTC on its own resolves concerns we have raised for months in our committee room, we would not proceed with legislation. And that's what we've done with H.R. 3527. However, concerns with the implementation of title VII remain, and so we are here today to proceed with H.R. 3336. This bill addresses issues that are important to community and farm credit banks--organizations which are instrumental to the economic vitality of our towns and rural communities.

In the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress was careful to ensure that new regulations wouldn't impose unnecessary costs on small institutions that might deter them from extending credit to businesses across America. Small banks pose very little risk to our financial system. Within the banking system, 96 percent of the notional value of derivatives is held by the five largest banks. The very small remaining percentage of the derivatives exposure in our financial system is spread across hundreds of small institutions. That's why Congress never intended for these community lenders to be regulated the same as the largest global financial institutions.

This bill aims to restore Congressional intent by exempting small banks, credit unions, nonprofit cooperative lenders, and farm credit institutions from costly clearing requirements under Dodd-Frank. It also ensures that banks can continue to provide risk management tools to their borrowers.

In addition, thanks to the leadership of Representatives Schilling, Owens, and McIntyre, provisions of H.R. 3336 will ensure captive finance affiliates of manufacturing companies like John Deere and Caterpillar are eligible for the same exemptions as their parent companies and other end-users. These affiliates are an important source of credit to consumers and businesses and promote our manufacturing sector.

Lastly, through the hard work of Representatives Costa, Cardoza, and Baca, H.R. 3336 clarifies that utilities will not be miscast as swap dealers because they enter into contracts that are required by State law. The legislation clarifies that complying with State laws alone won't also draw new and costly Federal regulations.

There are many Members on both sides of the aisle at the Ag Committee who have spent time getting this bill to where it is today. We have been careful not to create loopholes or to stray from congressional intent. The bill does not open the door for large financial players to evade regulations or engage in speculative or highly risky activities.

Madam Speaker, in this economy, it all comes back to jobs. To create new jobs, businesses need access to credit to make new investments. This bill ensures that businesses maintain access to credit from community lenders.

So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3336 and ensure that America's small businesses can continue to access the credit they need to build our economy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who is the primary sponsor of our important piece of legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Speaker, I would note to my colleague, the ranking member, I have one additional speaker, and then myself for whatever close I may have.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think, as we've heard here today, this piece of legislation is an effort, in a very bipartisan way, to address some of the issues in Dodd-Frank that need to be fixed. If you care about production agriculture, if you care about Main Street business, if you care about the people who work in the factories that produce the products and do the things that make this great economy move forward, then you'll support H.R. 3336.

It won't affect the five biggest financial institutions that do 96 percent of this kind of business, but it will help the people who really toil and struggle every day to make a living. It will help the small communities where those good folks live. It's a positive effort to address issues that have come to light in the course of the Ag Committee's exhaustive hearings.

I simply thank my colleague, Congresswoman Hartzler, for working diligently on this bill. I thank the ranking member and my colleagues.

Let's vote for H.R. 3336. Let's try and help the folks back home.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.

This bipartisan legislation is necessary to ensure that farmers and ranchers will not be subjected to excessive regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA currently has the ability to tighten regulatory standards for dust under the Clean Air Act.

Should the EPA do so, farmers, ranchers, and rural economies could be devastated. On dry days, production could come to a standstill as producers focus on controlling dust rather than producing food.

After months of receiving questions and concerns from farmers, ranchers, and their Representatives in Congress, the Administrator of the EPA finally stated that her agency does not intend to change the current standards.

However, as long as EPA Administrator Jackson retains unchecked power to implement stricter standards, farmers and ranchers could be subject to oppressive regulations at any time.

A legislative fix is the only way to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to invest in the future without worrying about the influence of overzealous activists on EPA's regulations.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

The free trade agreement with Korea is of vital importance to America's farmers and ranchers.

Korea is the fifth largest market for our agricultural exports. But currently, America's farmers and ranchers face an average tariff of 54 percent when exporting to Korea. Similar goods from Korea enter our country at an average rate of only 9 percent.

Passing this agreement corrects that imbalance and gives us better access to Korea's 49 million consumers.

The Farm Bureau estimates that once the agreement is fully implemented, we could see $1.9 billion in increased farm exports.

Every dollar in agricultural exports creates another $1.31 in economic activity off the farm in industries like processing, manufacturing, and transportation. So the agricultural provisions alone have the potential to provide a significant boost to our economy.

That isn't including the other tariff cuts in this agreement, which the International Trade Commission predicts will add more than $10 billion annually to our GDP.

Within agriculture, we could see dairy exports to Korea quadruple under this agreement. Fruit and vegetable sales would increase by 50 percent. And processed food sales would increase by more than a third.

Those increased sales will translate directly to more jobs--both on and off the farm. That's especially good news because workers whose jobs depend on trade earn 13 to 18 percent more than the national average.

That's why there is such tremendous support among the agricultural community for these free trade agreements.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support our farmers and ranchers . . . to support American jobs . . . and to support this free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free trade agreement on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers.

All three free trade agreements under consideration today are essential for our Nation's agricultural industry. Out of every $100 in agricultural sales, more than $25 comes from exports. So market access is critical to the success of our farmers and ranchers.

Colombia is particularly important to our producers because without a free trade agreement in place, we have begun to lose market access. Tariffs on American goods have made them more expensive and Colombians are choosing to buy other countries' products instead. Lost market access means lost income, lost jobs, and we cannot afford that.

Right now Colombia imposes duties on all American agricultural products. They range from 5 percent to 20 percent. Yet we still sell more than $830 million in agricultural products there. That's because America's farmers and ranchers produce high-quality crops and livestock, and those goods are in demand.

Under this agreement Colombia will eliminate tariffs on 70 percent of our exports. We can be sure that when American agricultural products are no longer subject to tariffs and become more cost competitive, we'll see substantial benefits. In fact, the Farm Bureau estimates we'll see 370 million more dollars in farm exports to Colombia annually.

While our farmers and ranchers will benefit from increased market access, they will not be alone. Farm exports create jobs throughout the economy in processing, packaging, transportation, just to name a few industries. A vote to pass the Colombia free trade agreement is a vote for job growth in all these sectors. It's a vote to create income and opportunity for our farmers and ranchers.

So I strongly urge my colleagues to support this free trade agreement and help keep America's agricultural industry competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for this free trade agreement with Panama.

Trade agreements open market access to our farmers and ranchers, which brings in valuable income and creates jobs. In my home State of Oklahoma, agricultural exports support more than 10,000 jobs. Across the country, agriculture exports support more than 1 million jobs total. Those jobs aren't confined to the farm either. They stretch across a variety of industries, including processing, manufacturing, and transportation.

In fact, for every dollar of farm products that we export, we add another $1.31 to our economy from those nonfarm industries. That's why it's so important to continue opening markets for American agricultural products.

More than 60 percent of our agricultural exports to Panama face some sort of duty or tariff. Those tariffs average 15 percent; but they can be as high as 70 percent on meat, 90 percent on grain, and a staggering 260 percent on poultry. Meanwhile, more than 99 percent of Panama's farm exports enter the U.S. duty free.

So this agreement will not only create new opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers but it levels the playing field for our exporters. As soon as this agreement is implemented, more than half of our farm exports will become duty free. So we can expect to see immediate opportunities once this agreement is in force.

America's farmers, ranchers, processors, manufacturers and shippers can all benefit from those opportunities. Let's help them expand their businesses and create more jobs. Let's pass this agreement.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I too rise in opposition to this amendment. Let's face it. The Wildlife Services plays a critical role in protecting humans from dangers caused by wildlife. The Wildlife Services uses biologically sound and socially----

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, the Wildlife Services' usual biologically sound and socially acceptable methods to resolve these issues when agriculture and industrial production are harmed by wildlife, or public safety is at risk from wildlife.

If you own a pet, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They reduce rabies in wildlife populations which prevents the spread of that terrible disease to domestic animals and humans.

Every time you get in a car, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They work to reduce automobile collisions with deer, which affect an average of 29,000 people each year, cause $1 billion in damages.

Every time you fly on a plane, you benefit from the Wildlife Services. They have people working in all 50 States to prevent dangerous aircraft collisions with birds.

How can we forget Captain Sullenberger's heroic landing on the Hudson River after Flight 1549 hit a bird at takeoff? And while we applaud the captain's achievement, there is no question that reducing these dangerous collisions must be a priority in the future.

And the largest portion of the Wildlife Services' budget, 43 percent, is spent on protecting human health and safety. Often Wildlife Services is the first line of defense against health risks involving everything from West Nile virus to avian flu, to Lyme disease. They prevent disease exposure to humans, livestock and wildlife.

And what's more, Wildlife Services is one of the few Federal agencies that requires private sector matching funds on a 1-1 basis. It's unfortunate that there are not more Federal programs as fiscally responsible as the Wildlife Services.

Yet, every year, animal rights groups opposed to the predator control conducted by the joint USDA Wildlife Services programs attempt to eliminate the funding from this vital program. And every year Congress rejects these attempts. That's because the wildlife cause $126 million in livestock losses for producers, field crop losses totaling $619 million, specialty crop losses at $146 million. All told, wildlife causes $12.8 billion in damage every year to natural resources, public infrastructure, private property and agriculture.

Without the predatory management done by Wildlife Services, losses would explode, driving family farms and ranchers out of business. Cutting funding for the Wildlife Services would be both costly and dangerous. Doing so also ignores the proven science behind Wildlife Services work, as well as their commitment to minimizing wildlife mortality.

This amendment's not scientifically sound, and it's certainly not economically minded. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, continue the funding for the Wildlife Services' efforts to protect you, your property, your pets.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I really kind of thought we were working on the annual agriculture appropriations bill, with the discretionary money, the programs that are handled on a year-to-year basis, but it seems we are going to debate the farm bill. I guess if that is the case, I should be managing it and let me just do it a year early.

The short statement is, like my colleagues Mr. Conaway and Mr. Peterson, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment would turn an industry on its head. It would do no good.

My good friend from Arizona has come to the floor and implied this would solve the trade dispute between the United States and Brazil. It would do no such thing. Mr. Flake has called this the Brazilian cotton problem, but the dispute is much more complicated than just cotton and actually involves export programs. This amendment wipes out the safety net established in 2008. For what reason? This is the kind of amendment you get when you have so-called experts offering amendments in areas outside their field of expertise.

This is a devastating amendment. This would throw the cotton market into disarray. We have no assurance, as the ranking member and the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee chairman have noted, no assurance from the Brazilians that if we eliminated the cotton program, as this amendment basically does, that it would make any difference to them.

As my colleagues have noted, we made huge changes in the 2008 farm bill, eliminating step two, changing the GSM program in a way we thought would satisfy the Brazilians. This amendment would circumvent the legislative process in what can only be described as a haphazard way.

Honestly, I really expected this amendment to be thrown out on a point of order because it clearly, clearly would end the countercyclical program for cotton, significantly changes how the repayment program works, eliminates the loan deficiency payments, and eliminates the cotton storage program. Those are major policy changes.

Again, this appropriation bill is 13 percent down. We are almost back to 2006 levels. Anyone who is concerned about what is being spent on the production of agriculture in rural America, take note; we are doing our part today under Mr. Kingston's bill. And when we get to the farm bill, be it next summer in regular order, be it this fall as part of some grandiose budget deficit-debt ceiling agreement, we will make incredibly tough decisions, because we will have to be a big part of addressing the national budgetary issue.

But let us do it in regular order. Let us do it in the farm bill process. Speaker Boehner has said time and time again, a more open process. Look at the appropriations process. We are going to do a farm bill under this open process. All of my good friends here will get to use all of their agricultural expertise in every conceivable way they can. But let's do it in regular order, in the proper fashion, in the proper way.

Again, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is clearly an attempt to legislate policy through an appropriation bill, contrary to the intent of regular order, and this is not the way that we should do business.

Arbitrarily changing eligibility requirements for farm programs outside of the farm bill is irresponsible. It seriously undermines farmers' ability to make long-term plans and investments, and it adds a dangerous element of uncertainty to the market. The result would be a reluctance to make investments in equipment and practices that increase productivity.

The process of developing the 2012 farm bill would begin in the Agriculture Committee next week. Our first step will be a comprehensive audit of current farm programs to determine which are working, which are not, and how to best insure that America's farmers and ranchers remain competitive and productive into the 21st century.

Our farm program audits are just the beginning of what will be a very transparent, inclusive, thorough process of developing the 2012 farm bill. During that process, we will be careful to consider how best to stabilize, how to provide stability and certainty to farmers during lean years. Without appropriate risk management tools in place, a few bad seasons could put farming operations out of business permanently.

Proponents of this amendment makes it sound like the Agriculture Committee has done nothing on this issue. That couldn't be farther from the truth. As my colleague has just alluded, in 2008, the Agriculture Committee, under the leadership of my colleague, then-chairman Peterson, meticulously debated the appropriate levels for farm program eligibility. The results were some of the most aggressive reforms in AGI in 2 decades.

Not only did we tighten eligibility, but in the implementation of those rules, USDA allows IRS to verify a farmer's AGI.

In 2012, we will once again review how to efficiently and effectively target farm policy. America's farmers, ranchers and taxpayers deserve an open and accountable policymaking process. This amendment not only precludes a transparent process, but it silences the voices of Americans who would like to contribute to comprehensive discussion of farm policy.

I urge you to oppose this amendment to prevent policy discussions from being shortchanged. Allow us to work through regular order in the open process that will be used in the coming year.

Once again, I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me ever so briefly say that I oppose the amendment. It, once again, is the process of cutting funding for the Market Access Program, in effect legislating farm policy through the appropriations process. It is not appropriate under regular order. It should not be occurring. We will consider this, along with other programs, in the 2012 Farm Bill program.

Let me note, I agree with my colleagues. Over the last 25 years MAP has boosted agriculture exports, it has increased American jobs, it has added to rural income. I know we have a lot of discussion these days on creation of jobs, and rightly so. Exports are one of the most surefire ways to increase American jobs. In fact, for every billion dollars in exports, approximately 8,400 jobs are created here at home. In 2010, agricultural exports alone supported nearly 1 million American jobs.

Please oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, and I think it might be worthwhile to explain for just a moment what the small watershed program is and what the small watershed rehabilitation program is all about.

These were efforts begun in the 1940s and 1950s by this body in an effort to address flooding conditions. Under this program, 10,000 small earthen dams were built across the country, working in interlocking series to prevent downstream flooding by capturing flood waters at the source.

Now, like anything after 50 years, its life expectancy can be expected to come to a conclusion. In 2000, we created the rehabilitation program to extend the life of these structures by additional time, and it now appears, based on the modern techniques being used, engineering technologies, that these 50-year structures will wind up with a 150-year total life expectancy in many instances.

This is a program where the rehabilitation resources are allocated based on need as scored by USDA. It's not an earmark program. It's not a targeted program. The money is made available, and as the structures need work, they are prioritized. It's a wonderful way to address this issue.

Now, if you look at the amount of property and life and infrastructure that have been protected in the life of these programs, it's almost incalculable. In Oklahoma, in the range of $81 million a year worth of property has been saved.

My colleague alluded to programs that only affect limited numbers of areas. I would note even in the great State of Georgia, there are 357 of these watershed structures. There are 69 that within the next 10 years will need the rehabilitation program. There are benefits in every State.

I would just simply say, if you care and you believe that infrastructure is a part of our responsibility, if you believe that protecting every life below that dam all the way to the ocean is important, and the property, then this is a wise, small use of resources. What my friend attempts to do here is to zero out the whole program. No money for rehab this year. No money for rehab this year.

That would be a travesty. That would be a tragic use of resources in the past. It's important, I think, that we continue this program.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I would say, reclaiming my time, that the gentleman is right. This is a dramatic reduction over what had been expected during the farm bill. Yet this $15 million will do tremendous work, and it is allocated on a 65-35 cost basis. Local and State government have to come up with more than a third of the money to be able to implement these rehabilitation programs.

For a few pennies, we do a great deal across the country based on need, not anyone's political priorities but based on need. This is an exceptional program. I would ask my colleagues to turn back this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against section 741 which begins on page 78, line 8, and ends on page 78, line 15, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against section 743 which begins on page 78, line 24, and ends on page 79, line 2, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against section 744 which begins on page 79, line 3, and ends on page 79, line 10, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.