Motion to Instruct Conferees on Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

This motion contains two instructions for the farm bill conferees. One is to support the permanent law provisions in the Senate farm bill and what we currently have and have had for years and years. The second is to support the Senate position of a 5-year reauthorization of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

To be clear, this motion keeps intact the longstanding alliance needed to pass a strong farm bill.

America's two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union, both wrote in opposition to the House's original consideration of H.R. 2642, the ``farm only'' farm bill.

Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman wrote:

It is frustrating to our members that this broad coalition of support for passage of the COMPLETE farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no real stake in this farm bill, the economic vitality and jobs agriculture provides in this country, or for the customers ranchers and farmers serve.

The Farm Bureau joined a broad coalition of 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop insurance groups that expressed their opposition to splitting the nutrition title from the farm bill and urged House leaders to pass a 5-year farm bill.

When such a large group of organizations, most with different if not conflicting priorities, can come together and agree on something, we should listen to them. Doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a stake in this bill recommends does not make sense, and it is not the way to achieve success, in my opinion.

I will insert both the Farm Bureau and coalition letters into the Record.

The farm bill's nutrition program needs to be on the same timeline as the bill's other provisions. It makes no sense to de-couple farm and food programs; they go hand in hand. I worry that separating the two of them sets us on a path to no farm bill in the future. The Senate farm bill preserves the partnership between farm and food programs, and we should defer to that approach.

As Farmers Union president Roger Johnson wrote:

Repealing permanent law would remove the element of the bill which would force Congress to act on a piece of legislation that provides a safety net for farmers and ranchers and the food insecure in this country, and protects our Nation's natural resources.

I will insert the Farmers Union letter into the Record.

The permanent law provisions are important to ensuring that Congress revisits farm programs every 5 years. These are farm laws from 1938 and 1949 that, if Congress does not pass a new farm bill, would go into effect. Actually, because we have not passed a farm bill at this point, and it expired on October 1, we actually are operating under permanent law right now.

Obviously, farming has changed a lot since then, and everybody knows these programs don't make a lot of sense today, but that's the point of permanent law. It is the reason that we work together and we pass a new farm bill, because the alternative is not very acceptable.

Farm bills are traditionally a compromise, and there are things that some people like and things that some people don't like. Permanent law encourages both groups to work together because no one wants to go back to the outdated and unworkable farm programs of 1938 and 1949.

Without these permanent law provisions, it will make it more difficult to make changes, improvements, and reforms over time as we discover that they are needed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I just say that we have had a way to deal with this for the last 40-some years that has worked pretty well. I think it is a big mistake, as most groups that are involved in the farm bill feel it is a mistake, to eliminate permanent law and to have a situation where one part of the bill is authorized for a different length of time than the other. People that have been involved in this for a long time think this is a mistake. I think it is a mistake.

I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source