Lincoln Addresses National Cattlemen's Beef Association

Earlier today, newly named Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) addressed the National Cattlemen's Beef Association at their annual legislative conference.

"Cattle and beef comprise a significant portion of agriculture in my home state of Arkansas and represent one of the largest sectors of the American agriculture economy," Lincoln said. "As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I am honored to represent the diversity we have in American agriculture. As I assume the gavel, I will look to take a balanced approach to my new role and work with my colleagues to build upon the Committee's strong record."

In her address, Lincoln highlighted the Committee's role in the climate change debate, as well as trade priorities and other issues critical to the industry. The following are Lincoln's remarks as prepared for delivery.

"When many people think of agriculture in Arkansas, most think of cotton, rice, or even poultry. However, cattle and beef also comprise a significant portion of agriculture in our state and is the largest sector of the American agriculture economy.

"As the new Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, I am honored to represent the diversity we have in American agriculture. As I assume the gavel, I will look to take a balanced approach to the role and work with my colleagues to build upon the Committee's strong record.

"There is a lot that we must do. With such priorities as child nutrition reauthorization, farm bill implementation, and regulation of commodities, the Committee has a full plate.

"I know there are many issues of importance to you as our nation's cattlemen. Issues such as climate change, the estate tax, the Clean Water and Restoration Act, and trade.

"As a Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am proud of the bipartisan energy bill that will promote greater energy efficiency, grow the use of cleaner, renewable energy sources, and encourage the use of domestic oil and gas resources that will create jobs, and cut our dependence on foreign oil.

"Adding climate change legislation to the reforms already included in the Senate Energy Committee's proposal is going to be a challenge in my view.

"I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas. It is a deeply flawed bill, and I will not support similar legislation in the Senate.

"As Chairman, I have some specific agriculture-related concerns. Under a cap-and-trade bill, crops like cotton and rice and our livestock industries could face higher energy costs without the added benefit of being able to sequester significant amounts of carbon.

"Whether it is cattle, poultry, or catfish, the potential for higher feeds prices under a cap-and-trade bill are a major concern.

"I plan to weigh in with Chairman Boxer in the next few weeks to share some ideas and ensure that the interests of producers are taken into account during any cap-and-trade process in the Senate.

"As the daughter of an Arkansas rice farmer, I know the value in building something up so that you can one day pass it down.

"I also know the tremendous feeling of pride in not just maintaining, but building upon the work of those who came before you; taking something that was given to you and making it better for those who come after you.

"A family farm or business should be something than can live on as long as the family has the will and ability to properly care for it. That is why, through my role on the Senate Finance Committee, I have consistently promoted fair tax and economic policies that give our nation's working families a chance to get ahead, support small business growth and investment, and avoid borrowing from our children. My work to reform the estate tax is consistent with these principles.

"As you know all too well, the current federal estate tax rate, at 45 percent, is ten points higher than the highest income tax bracket and thirty points higher than the capital gains tax. In addition, under current law the estate tax is scheduled to increase even higher to 55 percent, in 2011 if no action is taken to provide relief.

"I have consistently supported reform of this tax because of the unfair burden it places on family-owned farms and businesses.

"Family-owned farms and small businesses are the economic engines of our rural communities. They provide half of all private sector jobs and, in the last ten years, have accounted for at least 60 percent of all new jobs created across the country.

"Unfortunately, many of these businesses must hand over significant portions of their hard-earned assets to the government upon a family member's death.

"According to IRS statistics, over the last decade more than 31,000 taxpayers subjected to the federal estate tax owned closely-held businesses, almost 15,000 owned farm assets, more than 40,000 owned limited partnerships, and over 20,000 owned other non-corporate business assets.

"Subjecting these family-run businesses to a punitive tax of up to 55 percent upon the death of a family member puts them at a significant competitive disadvantage with their publicly-held rivals, who face no such hardship.

"Over the years, I have heard from hundreds of business owners and farmers in my home state of Arkansas and around the country who would welcome fairness and stability in estate tax law. I've seen too many of them restrict the growth of their enterprises and spend valuable assets on estate planning and life insurance in order to avoid facing the impossible choice of leaving their families with a hefty federal tax burden or selling off portions of their assets when they pass away.

"These dollars would be so much more beneficial to our communities if they were invested in the creation of new jobs to expand the business and grow the local economies. As we look toward next year, there is still a great need for action and support for change.

"As many of you well know, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) recently voted the Clean Water and Restoration Act out of committee.

"I know there is a lot of concern in the agriculture community about a provision that would replace the term "navigable waters' with "waters of the United States.'

"Although there is an apparent exemption for sewer facilities and agricultural operations, I appreciate the view that it could provide that EPA could expand its authority to regulate all U.S waters, including non-navigable wetlands, beyond what is in the legislation.

"As this bill moves through the U.S. Senate, you can be certain that I will work with my colleagues to craft a balanced proposal that respects private property rights and the environment.

"We certainly don't want to give EPA the broad authority that would allow them onto your farms to regulate ponds, ditches, and gutters.

"As a Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will continue to ensure that American agriculture gets the respect it deserves in the world marketplace because the world market for our farmers is not free or fair.

"My message in Washington has been simple: We should meet our global competition, and we should not unilaterally disarm our farmers in the global marketplace.

"The unfortunate reality is that our global agricultural competition is heavily subsidized, and our competitors' markets are closed to the agricultural goods that you produce.

"In fact, we have had to fight tooth and nail for the small bit of access to international markets that we enjoy today.

"Last year, the Bush Administration made a number of offers to reduce our agriculture support levels during the WTO negotiations in Doha.

"Unfortunately, those offers were not reciprocated with offers from other members for more market access for American producers.

"Specifically, countries with a rapidly expanding middle class, like India and China, refused to make any significant concessions on market access for our producers and ranchers.

"U.S. concessions, however, did make it into the current agriculture text.

"I helped lead that charge with my Senate colleagues to tell the Administration that "No deal is better than a bad deal."

"We made clear that any future agreement will be unacceptable without considerable changes in market access for our producers.

"Other trade priorities that I continue to push the Administration to consider are free trade agreements, like Colombia and Panama, and legislation to open our products to Cuba.

"President Obama has announced new rules allowing Americans to make unlimited trips and money transfers to relatives in Cuba. While I commend the President for this decision, I will continue to push for further action to end our nation's trade embargo with Cuba.

"I am a strong advocate for ending the Cuban trade embargo. In 2000, I lead a U.S. trade mission to Cuba.

"The experience reinforced my belief that, after four decades, the embargo has accomplished all it is going to.

"The only groups the embargo has hurt are impoverished Cubans and U.S. farmers. As agricultural producers, our farmers and ranchers have much to gain from trade with Cuba.

"Lifting the Cuban embargo would be an economic stimulus in itself to the farmers and thousands of companies currently cut off from trade with Cuba.

"I am confident that lifting the trade embargo also would benefit Cuban citizens. If we expose the Cuban people to the benefits of capitalism and democracy, we will make far greater strides towards positive change in Cuban government and society than through isolation.

"The long-term benefits of engagement with Cuba offer better living conditions for the Cuban people, opportunities for Democratic influences inside Cuba, and economic benefits to Americans. Lifting the trade embargo is a no-brainer."

Source