[Pages H5650-H5658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012

Mr. LUCAS. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6233

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Disaster
Assistance Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible producer on a farm.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible producer on a farm''
means an individual or entity described in subparagraph (B)
that, as determined by the Secretary, assumes the production
and market risks associated with the agricultural production
of crops or livestock.
(B) Description.--An individual or entity referred to in
subparagraph (A) is--
(i) a citizen of the United States;
(ii) a resident alien;
(iii) a partnership of citizens of the United States; or

[[Page H5651]]

(iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other
farm organizational structure organized under State law.
(2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised fish'' means
any aquatic species that is propagated and reared in a
controlled environment.
(3) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' includes--
(A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
(B) bison;
(C) poultry;
(D) sheep;
(E) swine;
(F) horses; and
(G) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
(1) Payments.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall
use such sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make livestock indemnity payments to
eligible producers on farms that have incurred livestock
death losses in excess of the normal mortality, as determined
by the Secretary, due to--
(A) attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the
Federal Government or protected by Federal law, including
wolves and avian predators; or
(B) adverse weather, as determined by the Secretary, during
the calendar year, including losses due to hurricanes,
floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires, extreme heat, and
extreme cold.
(2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to an eligible
producer on a farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a
rate of 75 percent of the market value of the applicable
livestock on the day before the date of death of the
livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Special rule for payments made due to disease.--The
Secretary shall ensure that payments made to an eligible
producer under paragraph (1) are not made for the same
livestock losses for which compensation is provided pursuant
to section 10407(d) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8306(d)).
(c) Livestock Forage Disaster Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Covered livestock.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term ``covered livestock'' means livestock of an eligible
livestock producer that, during the 60 days prior to the
beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire condition, as
determined by the Secretary, the eligible livestock
producer--

(I) owned;
(II) leased;
(III) purchased;
(IV) entered into a contract to purchase;
(V) is a contract grower; or
(VI) sold or otherwise disposed of due to qualifying
drought conditions during--

(aa) the current production year; or
(bb) subject to paragraph (3)(B)(ii), 1 or both of the 2
production years immediately preceding the current production
year.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``covered livestock'' does not
include livestock that were or would have been in a feedlot,
on the beginning date of the qualifying drought or fire
condition, as a part of the normal business operation of the
eligible livestock producer, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Drought monitor.--The term ``drought monitor'' means a
system for classifying drought severity according to a range
of abnormally dry to exceptional drought, as defined by the
Secretary.
(C) Eligible livestock producer.--
(i) In general.--The term ``eligible livestock producer''
means an eligible producer on a farm that--

(I) is an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract grower
of covered livestock that provides the pastureland or grazing
land, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land, for
the livestock;
(II) provides the pastureland or grazing land for covered
livestock, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land
that is physically located in a county affected by drought;
(III) certifies grazing loss; and
(IV) meets all other eligibility requirements established
under this subsection.

(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``eligible livestock producer''
does not include an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract
grower of livestock that rents or leases pastureland or
grazing land owned by another person on a rate-of-gain basis.
(D) Normal carrying capacity.--The term ``normal carrying
capacity'', with respect to each type of grazing land or
pastureland in a county, means the normal carrying capacity,
as determined under paragraph (3)(D)(i), that would be
expected from the grazing land or pastureland for livestock
during the normal grazing period, in the absence of a drought
or fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or
pastureland.
(E) Normal grazing period.--The term ``normal grazing
period'', with respect to a county, means the normal grazing
period during the calendar year for the county, as determined
under paragraph (3)(D)(i).
(2) Program.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall use
such sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to provide compensation for losses to
eligible livestock producers due to grazing losses for
covered livestock due to--
(A) a drought condition, as described in paragraph (3); or
(B) fire, as described in paragraph (4).
(3) Assistance for losses due to drought conditions.--
(A) Eligible losses.--
(i) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive
assistance under this subsection only for grazing losses for
covered livestock that occur on land that--

(I) is native or improved pastureland with permanent
vegetative cover; or
(II) is planted to a crop planted specifically for the
purpose of providing grazing for covered livestock.

(ii) Exclusions.--An eligible livestock producer may not
receive assistance under this subsection for grazing losses
that occur on land used for haying or grazing under the
conservation reserve program established under subchapter B
of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.).
(B) Monthly payment rate.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
payment rate for assistance under this paragraph for 1 month
shall, in the case of drought, be equal to 60 percent of the
lesser of--

(I) the monthly feed cost for all covered livestock owned
or leased by the eligible livestock producer, as determined
under subparagraph (C); or
(II) the monthly feed cost calculated by using the normal
carrying capacity of the eligible grazing land of the
eligible livestock producer.

(ii) Partial compensation.--In the case of an eligible
livestock producer that sold or otherwise disposed of covered
livestock due to drought conditions in 1 or both of the 2
production years immediately preceding the current production
year, as determined by the Secretary, the payment rate shall
be 80 percent of the payment rate otherwise calculated in
accordance with clause (i).
(C) Monthly feed cost.--
(i) In general.--The monthly feed cost shall equal the
product obtained by multiplying--

(I) 30 days;
(II) a payment quantity that is equal to the feed grain
equivalent, as determined under clause (ii); and
(III) a payment rate that is equal to the corn price per
pound, as determined under clause (iii).

(ii) Feed grain equivalent.--For purposes of clause
(i)(II), the feed grain equivalent shall equal--

(I) in the case of an adult beef cow, 15.7 pounds of corn
per day; or
(II) in the case of any other type of weight of livestock,
an amount determined by the Secretary that represents the
average number of pounds of corn per day necessary to feed
the livestock.

(iii) Corn price per pound.--For purposes of clause
(i)(III), the corn price per pound shall equal the quotient
obtained by dividing--

(I) the higher of--

(aa) the national average corn price per bushel for the 12-
month period immediately preceding March 1 of the year for
which the disaster assistance is calculated; or
(bb) the national average corn price per bushel for the 24-
month period immediately preceding that March 1; by

(II) 56.

(D) Normal grazing period and drought monitor intensity.--
(i) FSA county committee determinations.--

(I) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the normal
carrying capacity and normal grazing period for each type of
grazing land or pastureland in the county served by the
applicable committee.
(II) Changes.--No change to the normal carrying capacity or
normal grazing period established for a county under
subclause (I) shall be made unless the change is requested by
the appropriate State and county Farm Service Agency
committees.

(ii) Drought intensity.--

(I) D2.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or leases
grazing land or pastureland that is physically located in a
county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as having a
D2 (severe drought) intensity in any area of the county for
at least 8 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period
for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an
amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment
rate determined under subparagraph (B).
(II) D3.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or
leases grazing land or pastureland that is physically located
in a county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as
having at least a D3 (extreme drought) intensity in any area
of the county at any time during the normal grazing period
for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph--

(aa) in an amount equal to 2 monthly payments using the
monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or
(bb) if the county is rated as having a D3 (extreme
drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4
weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, or is
rated as having a D4 (exceptional drought) intensity in any
area of the county at any time during the normal grazing
period, in an amount equal to 3 monthly payments using the
monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B).

[[Page H5652]]

(4) Assistance for losses due to fire on public managed
land.--
(A) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive
assistance under this paragraph only if--
(i) the grazing losses occur on rangeland that is managed
by a Federal agency; and
(ii) the eligible livestock producer is prohibited by the
Federal agency from grazing the normal permitted livestock on
the managed rangeland due to a fire.
(B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for assistance under
this paragraph shall be equal to 50 percent of the monthly
feed cost for the total number of livestock covered by the
Federal lease of the eligible livestock producer, as
determined under paragraph (3)(C).
(C) Payment duration.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible
livestock producer shall be eligible to receive assistance
under this paragraph for the period--

(I) beginning on the date on which the Federal agency
excludes the eligible livestock producer from using the
managed rangeland for grazing; and
(II) ending on the last day of the Federal lease of the
eligible livestock producer.

(ii) Limitation.--An eligible livestock producer may only
receive assistance under this paragraph for losses that occur
on not more than 180 days per year.
(5) No duplicative payments.--An eligible livestock
producer may elect to receive assistance for grazing or
pasture feed losses due to drought conditions under paragraph
(3) or fire under paragraph (4), but not both for the same
loss, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and
Farm-Raised Fish.--
(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2012, the Secretary shall
use not more than $20,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to provide emergency relief to eligible
producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to
aid in the reduction of losses due to disease (including
cattle tick fever), adverse weather, or other conditions,
such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the
Secretary, that are not covered under subsection (b) or (c).
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this
subsection shall be used to reduce losses caused by feed or
water shortages, disease, or other factors as determined by
the Secretary.
(3) Availability of funds.--Any funds made available under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(e) Tree Assistance Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Eligible orchardist.--The term ``eligible orchardist''
means a person that produces annual crops from trees for
commercial purposes.
(B) Natural disaster.--The term ``natural disaster'' means
plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze,
flood, earthquake, lightning, or other occurrence, as
determined by the Secretary.
(C) Nursery tree grower.--The term ``nursery tree grower''
means a person who produces nursery, ornamental, fruit, nut,
or Christmas trees for commercial sale, as determined by the
Secretary.
(D) Tree.--The term ``tree'' includes a tree, bush, and
vine.
(2) Eligibility.--
(A) Loss.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for fiscal year
2012, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
assistance--
(i) under paragraph (3) to eligible orchardists and nursery
tree growers that planted trees for commercial purposes but
lost the trees as a result of a natural disaster, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) under paragraph (3)(B) to eligible orchardists and
nursery tree growers that have a production history for
commercial purposes on planted or existing trees but lost the
trees as a result of a natural disaster, as determined by the
Secretary.
(B) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist or nursery tree
grower shall qualify for assistance under subparagraph (A)
only if the tree mortality of the eligible orchardist or
nursery tree grower, as a result of damaging weather or
related condition, exceeds 15 percent (adjusted for normal
mortality).
(3) Assistance.--Subject to paragraph (4), the assistance
provided by the Secretary to eligible orchardists and nursery
tree growers for losses described in paragraph (2) shall
consist of--
(A)(i) reimbursement of 70 percent of the cost of
replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster, as
determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent
mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or
(ii) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings
to reestablish a stand; and
(B) reimbursement of 50 percent of the cost of pruning,
removal, and other costs incurred by an eligible orchardist
or nursery tree grower to salvage existing trees or, in the
case of tree mortality, to prepare the land to replant trees
as a result of damage or tree mortality due to a natural
disaster, as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15
percent damage or mortality (adjusted for normal tree damage
and mortality).
(4) Limitations on assistance.--
(A) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this
paragraph, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have the
meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
(B) Amount.--The total amount of payments received,
directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity
(excluding a joint venture or general partnership) under this
subsection may not exceed $100,000 for any crop year, or an
equivalent value in tree seedlings.
(C) Acres.--The total quantity of acres planted to trees or
tree seedlings for which a person or legal entity shall be
entitled to receive payments under this subsection may not
exceed 500 acres.
(f) Payment Limitations.--
(1) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this
subsection, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have
the meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
(2) Amount.--The total amount of disaster assistance
payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or
legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general
partnership) under this section (excluding payments received
under subsection (e)) may not exceed $100,000 for any crop
year.
(3) AGI limitation.--Section 1001D of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) or any successor provision shall
apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.
(4) Direct attribution.--Subsections (e) and (f) of section
1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) or any
successor provisions relating to direct attribution shall
apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.
(g) Application.--This section shall take effect as of
October 1, 2011, and apply to losses that are incurred as the
result of a disaster, adverse weather, or other environmental
condition that occurs on or before September 30, 2012, as
determined by the Secretary.
(h) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by
the Secretary under this section shall be final and
conclusive.
(i) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit
Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this section.
(2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this section shall be made without regard
to--
(A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(B) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''); and
(C) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking.
(3) Congressional review of agency rulemaking.--In carrying
out this subsection, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Conservation Stewardship Program.--Section 1238G(d)(1)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838g(d)(1)) is
amended by inserting ``(except that for fiscal year 2013, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enroll in
the program an additional 11,000,000 acres)'' before the
semicolon.
(b) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--Section
1241(a)(6) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(6)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) $1,750,000,000 in fiscal year 2012;
``(F) $1,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2013; and
``(G) $1,750,000,000 in fiscal year 2014.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 752, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Peterson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. 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

[[Page H5653]]

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.

{time} 1150

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. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today is the last session before the August recess, and once again
the House will adjourn without finishing its work. It's no wonder
nobody likes Congress anymore. Members will now have to explain to
their constituents why the House did not even try to consider a new 5-
year farm bill. Frankly, we're in this position because the House
leadership has refused to bring the 5-year farm bill to the floor.
Working in a bipartisan tradition on the Agriculture Committee,
Chairman Lucas and I have crafted a new 5-year farm bill making many
important and needed reforms. I appreciate the efforts of the chairman
in trying to enact a long-term policy, and I know that if he had his
way, as he just said, we would have already passed a farm bill. The
chairman and I were ready to mark up our bill at the end of June, but
the Republican leadership stepped in and said that they wanted us to
consider the ag approps bill. So we held off for a couple of weeks, and
then they didn't even bring the ag approps bill to the floor. The
committee completed their work then on July 11, passing a new bill, a
5-year bill, 35-11 in a bipartisan vote. But rather than bring this
bill to the floor, the House instead focused on messaging bills that
are going nowhere.

I understand that this is an election year and the majority wants to
promote their message, and I've even voted for some of these bills. You
would think that after delaying us for 2 weeks, the leadership could
have found 2 days on the House calendar to consider the committee's
farm bill before the August recess.
Instead of bringing up the 5-year farm bill, the Republican
leadership last week put forth a 1-year farm bill extension hoping to
delay action until the next Congress, with hopes, for some people, that
they're going to dismantle the farm and food safety nets. Fortunately,
under intense opposition from those in agriculture and others, the
leadership had to pull the bill. This brings us to today's
consideration of H.R. 6233. This measure will provide some assistance
to a few livestock producers affected by drought conditions across the
country. Providing assistance to livestock producers, primarily cattle
and sheep, is necessary and important, but this is not a comprehensive
disaster package. Dairy and specialty crop producers are going to be
left hurting, and there's no assistance for pork and poultry producers.
The Ag Committee's farm bill not only includes the livestock
provision we're considering today, it also strengthens the farm safety
net on a wide-ranging list of commodities. The 5-year farm bill will do
a better job of providing certainty for American agriculture and
assistance during this period of drought.
Additionally, I have concerns about the conservation cuts that are
used to pay for this assistance. I don't think cutting conservation
programs to offset the cost of disaster is the right approach. If there
was more time, maybe we could find a better way to do this. But in the
rush of putting this bill together, it didn't give us the necessary
time to explore all of the options. This is yet another reason that I
think bringing up a 5-year bill makes more sense.
It's just mystifying to me why House leaders can't take ``yes'' for
an answer. I don't know how many times I've heard from the other side
complaints about the Senate not being able to get our bills passed. We
passed a lot of bills, most of which I supported, that are over in the
Senate and they never took them up. Now the Senate has passed a bill,
and this may be the only time that we will ever be able to get a farm
bill through the Senate. They passed it on a bipartisan basis. We
passed it on a bipartisan basis. Now the leadership doesn't want to
bring it up. I don't understand it.
The farm economy is the one part of the economy that is actually
working, doing well, has been solid for the last few years. This is due
in part, I believe, to the strong farm bill that we passed in '08.
Weathering a natural disaster without the certainty of a 5-year bill
could jeopardize one of the bright spots we have in this economy.
With all that said, I do recognize the effects the drought is having
on our farmers, and I will vote in favor of H.R. 6233. However, this
bill is a sad substitute for what is really needed--a long-term farm
policy. So I'll continue to urge my colleagues to bring up the House
agriculture 5-year farm bill and to ensure that all producers will have
necessary assistance during these times of disaster.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5654]]

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 6233, the supplemental
agriculture disaster assistance bill.
As we look across the United States, many areas, including South
Dakota, are facing a serious drought. While many of our producers are
covered by crop insurance, our livestock producers don't have the same
safety net in place to weather this drought. That's why the livestock
disaster programs are so important.
The last farm bill was in place for 5 years, while the livestock
disaster programs were only put into place for 4. That's why back in
April I introduced legislation that would reauthorize those programs
and retroactively look at 2012, recognizing that it was a dereliction
of our duty, and to make sure that there was a safety net for our
livestock producers, as well. The 2008 farm bill did not extend that
disaster coverage for this year, but today we have the chance to make
that right.
This House should not go home while literally hanging our ranchers
out to dry without a safety net to get through this drought. This need
is immediate, which is why we need to get this done. Beyond this, I'm
going to continue to advocate for a 5-year farm bill, knowing it's the
right thing to do, making sure that these programs are put into place
for the lifetime of that farm bill so that we can avoid situations like
this.
The full 5-year farm bill is the best way to get a long-term safety
net for our livestock producers, and for our commodity producers, as
well. We can't wait another day with this drought going on without
giving our ranchers some needed certainty. That's why I'm going to urge
all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today, and to continue to work to
get a 5-year farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa, one of our ranking members, Mr.
Boswell.

{time} 1200

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of farmers and
producers in Iowa and in my district and across the country. And I want
to thank you, Chairman Lucas, and you, Ranking Member Peterson, for
working together to try to resolve the need for the farm bill. As you
know, we are suffering because of the drought that continues to beat
down on our land and our livestock.
While I'm not 100 percent pleased with this bill, I will vote today
to move it forward on behalf of my producers in need. And for those who
have been grappling for hay and have begun to liquidate cattle, I will
support this disaster aid bill. However, I do it with a heavy heart,
yet with the eternal optimist of a farmer, as you are, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Peterson.
As a cow-calf producer myself, I can tell you exactly what our
farmers and ranchers across America want. They want a farm bill, a 5-
year farm bill that will provide long-term certainty in a changing
market with an uncontrollable climate.
Producers in my State want a farm bill that invests in expansions and
research for insurance programs, like the provisions we worked on in
the House committee for livestock insurance and for specialty crops.
They want to see a bill that will help them beyond 2012 and 2013, a
bill that shows what we know: not only must we react to this drought,
but we must prepare for the future.
Since July 11, I have expressed my support for a farm bill every
chance I have had. I hope for a conference the same way I hope for
rain. However, the Republican leadership has taken every chance they
get to block debate on the 5-year farm bill.
It is clear this is not a perfect bill; but these happen to be
imperfect times, and I believe we must respond to the drought that is
impacting more than half of our Nation, as was depicted by the chairman
a few moments ago.
I have reservations regarding the cuts to conservation, particularly
since conservation programs have been one option to help feed the
cattle under our current drought. Furthermore, if we could bring the
farm bill to the floor, we could respond to drought issues, we could
debate issues that are critical to all Americans, and we could advance
a bill that saves tens of billions of dollars.
It is imperative that we pass a comprehensive, long-term farm bill.
Farmers and ranchers always face decisions that carry very serious
financial ramifications, such as planting a crop, buying land,
upgrading machinery, building a herd. And we know that if we don't have
a farm bill, that there are going to be a lot of ramifications on those
out there that depend on the agriculture economy for a lot more than
producing cattle or corn and beans or wheat or whatever. The machinery
is a big part of it.
Both the Senate and the House Agriculture Committees have produced
reform-minded, bipartisan bills that address plenty of the core
principles that are important, such as strengthening crop insurance and
ensuring strong agricultural research and development.
We have heard time and again in this House how uncertainty in the
marketplace hinders job creation and economic growth. Not passing a
long-term farm bill is bringing uncertainty to family farmers across
Iowa, across the Nation, and this uncertainty must end.
We must pass a 5-year farm bill as soon as possible. Therefore, I
remain hopeful--my eternal optimism, as I stated--that after providing
relief to our producers impacted by this drought, that when we return
from the August work period, that Speaker Boehner will welcome us back
with a farm bill on the floor.
I support this resolution.
Mr. PETERSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. 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. GOODLATTE. I thank Chairman Lucas for his leadership on this
issue and Ranking Member Peterson for his support of this effort to
take action to help livestock producers who are being devastated by the
drought. Livestock farmers in the Sixth District of Virginia have been
hit hard by the heat and the derecho that swept through the Shenandoah
Valley last month.
This disaster relief was included in the 2008 farm bill but,
unfortunately, did not last the full length of the farm bill. I am
pleased that the Congress has found a way to provide relief for these
livestock farmers; and not only do we provide the relief, but we pay
for it. And not only do we pay for it, but we also achieve additional
savings that are applied to the deficit. If every bill passed by the
Congress reduced spending overall, we would be in much better fiscal
condition in the Federal Government.
While the Congress is taking an important first step in providing
relief for drought-stricken livestock farmers, the administration has
at hand a tool that they should use right now to provide drought relief
as well.
The Obama administration has at its disposal an easy relief valve
that would provide drought relief, if only temporarily--a reduction in
the government-mandated Renewable Fuel Standard. I have long been a
critic of the RFS that has increased food and feed stocks being
diverted into fuel, leading to diminished supplies for livestock and
food producers. In fact, last year, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop
was used for ethanol production. There is no doubt that this policy has
driven up the price of corn, which today is hovering around $8 a
bushel. This, in turn, drives up the cost of food.
Unfortunately, because of the drought, we no longer have the luxury
of being just worried about the price. This drought is so devastating
that we have to be increasingly worried we do not have a large enough
corn supply to meet all of our competing demands.
As we confront the reality of the tightening corn supplies, there are
real concerns about having enough to satisfy the RFS and the needs of
our food producers. We should not be in a position where we are
choosing between fuel and food. In fact, the government has chosen:
they've chosen fuel over food with a policy that mandates a certain
amount of corn production going to ethanol production each year.

[[Page H5655]]

As the drought further shrinks the corn supply, we are unfortunately
also going to see livestock herds shrink. This shrinking herd will
affect consumers' grocery bills, resulting in consumers having to spend
more in the grocery store. Rural communities that depend on livestock
will be hit hard as producers affected by both the availability and
high price of corn are being forced to limit their production or are
being squeezed out of business.
The law allows the Administrator of the EPA to reduce the required
volume of renewable fuels in any year based on severe harm to the
economy or environment of a state, a region or the United States, or in
the event of inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. This drought
and the shrinking corn crop are causing severe economic harm in the
countryside and on grocery store shelves.
The Administrator of the EPA has already received a petition to waive
the RFS for a year. Today, over 150 bipartisan members, from coast to
coast, joined in calling for Administrator Jackson to waive the RFS.
The Congress is acting today to help drought stricken livestock
farmers, but now the Obama Administration must act to use their
authority to help these same farmers. This relief is not only
desperately needed, but I believe is required by the law.
I urge all members to join today in supporting this bill to help
provide much needed drought relief, and I urge the Administration to
join the Congress in acting to provide drought relief by waiving the
RFS.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a first start
toward addressing a longer-term problem that requires other action.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose this measure--
not because drought relief is not desperately needed in many parts of
this country, but because we have a far better vehicle to do this in
the form of the farm bill that Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Peterson have worked so tirelessly to produce, a good, good 5-year farm
policy on behalf of American agriculture.
We need to do the job that we were sent here to do. The drought
relief package that we are voting on today, I believe, is sadly more
about giving the Republican leadership relief when they go back to
their districts in August than helping our Nation's farmers, ranchers,
and dairymen.
There is no denying that action is needed to offer relief, and we
must do that; and hopefully we'll come to an agreement in September.
But the best action, I believe, is passing the bipartisan farm bill.
If we were serious about helping agriculture make it through this
drought, we would have brought up the bipartisan farm bill, which came
out of the United States Senate, passed the House Agriculture Committee
by a vote of 35-11, and followed regular order.
The fact is that instead of working on a conference committee, as we
should be doing at this time because we certainly have had enough time
to do that, we are voting on a patchwork measure that, in my opinion,
is more about politics than policy and, more likely than not, will go
nowhere in the United States Senate.
The dairymen, poultry producers, and cattle feeders in my district
have seen their feed prices skyrocket 30 to 35 percent in the last 6 to
8 weeks. And, yes, we ought to provide relief through the Renewable
Fuel Standard.
Bankruptcies are increasing at an alarming rate among the dairy
industry in California. When these businesses are already struggling to
stay afloat, they look to Congress for leadership. They look to
Congress for real action to produce a 5-year farm bill. Drought relief
alone is not enough. Lord knows we dealt with a drought in California
that was devastating in 2009 and 2010.
Passing a farm bill would give farmers, ranchers, and dairymen the
certainty that they need for the next 5 years in a part of the economy
that has been doing, generally speaking, fairly well over the last
several years. This includes long-term authority for disaster
assistance along with all the other support from a farm bill that helps
them do their work in the conservation programs, in the EQUIP programs,
market-access programs, and in research that is vital to American
agriculture.
This bill, sadly, would pit disaster relief against the conservation
programs that farmers in my district rely on.
We need real solutions; and that solution, in my opinion, is passing
a farm bill--not half-hearted actions to protect our political
interests.
My colleagues, we have the time. Let's go to a conference committee
and produce a bipartisan farm bill. It's traditionally the most
bipartisan thing we do in this Congress.
Mr. LUCAS. 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.

{time} 1210

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6233.
Like the chairman and the ranking member, I wish we were here debating
the 5-year farm bill that was passed out of the House Ag Committee,
which would have brought certainty and reform and would have saved the
American taxpayers over $35 billion.
But the truth is we have a drought across this country. Over 75
percent of the areas that produce agriculture in this country are
reporting either abnormally dry or worse conditions. That doesn't just
impact farmers and ranchers; that impacts Americans who consume food
products all across this country, driving food costs up.
So what we are doing today is doing something we should have done
when we wrote the previous farm bill, and that is making sure that this
program is extended for an additional year, and doing it in a way that
is very fiscally responsible. In fact, we're going to save the American
taxpayers $256 million by making some shifts, moving some money around
and making sure that these farmers and ranchers that are going through
this tremendous drought have the resources they need to continue and to
help somewhat mitigate the increased cost of food for our country.
I hope that my colleagues will vote for this; but also, I hope in the
future we will be back down on this floor debating a very important
farm policy for American consumers and American farmers and ranchers.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to
commend the bipartisan leadership on this committee, Chairman Lucas and
the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for the hard work they have done and
the leadership they've provided.
We are faced with sort of a dilemma here. The right thing for us to
do, that we should be doing right now, that we should have been doing 2
or 3 days ago, was dealing with the 5-year extension of the farm bill.
That is exactly what we need to be doing. It gives consistency. It will
give uniformity to our very vital food industry. I might add, Mr.
Speaker, that it is needed very desperately at this time.
But at the same time, we are faced with a very serious drought
situation that is pummeling our country, the likes of which we haven't
seen in over 60 years. So the immediate and responsible thing for us to
do is to respond to this drought crisis and pass this bill immediately
and then resolve that the first order of business we will do when we
return is take up the 5-year farm bill.
Might I add that while we have this disaster facing us, which is the
drought, we have another, and that is the food issue in this country,
especially the issue of the SNAP program, what we refer to as the food
stamp program, if we do not come together with a good conference
committee report that looks at this issue with the necessity that the
problem presents.
Under the current bill on the House side passed by the Agriculture
Committee, according to CBO, there will be over 300,000 children who
will go without food. There will be 155,000 veterans who will go
without food, and nearly 200,000 of our seniors. What I'm saying is we
have not just a drought crisis, which we are going to respond to today,
but we have got to come back and deal with this other crisis as we work
to put together a very effective 5-year farm bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), one of the most active members of the
committee.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the

[[Page H5656]]

Ag Committee for his important leadership on this issue and many, many
others.
Mr. Speaker, just like in Nebraska where we're hoping for rain, I'm
actually hoping for a long-term farm bill. Agriculture remains the only
bright spot in the American economy, and it is critical that we build a
multi-year farm bill that is built upon our strengthens and provides
certainty for our Nation's agriculture producers.
Last month, with bipartisan support, the House Agriculture Committee,
under Chairman Lucas's leadership, approved such a bill. The House
should act on it before the current farm bill expires this September.
While the 5-year proposal is not perfect, it provides adequate
protections for farmers and ranchers. It supports young and beginning
farmers and embraces new market opportunities domestically and
internationally while also reducing spending. The proposal charts a new
way forward for America's farmers and ranchers while respecting the
Federal Government's severe budgetary constraints.
Mr. Speaker, agricultural policy is essential to America's food
security. But agriculture is also critical to our energy policy,
environmental policy, even our national security policy. A new farm
bill is imperative for the future of the agriculture sector, but also
for the well-being of our country.
While I'm disappointed that we are not acting on a long-term bill, it
is important that we consider this legislation, and I support its
passage. Drought conditions are affecting many parts of the Nation.
This bill reinstates past legislative provisions--there's nothing new
here--and it gives relief to livestock producers. The measure is paid
for and actually reduces spending, while attempting to remain
appropriately sensitive to important conservation programs. I urge its
passage.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. 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. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise today in
strong support of this disaster relief bill. To fully appreciate the
need for this legislation--and it's going to pass the House today, we
hope, and be signed into law by the President this week--just turn on
your television or look at the front page of any newspaper to see the
details of the drought gripping our countryside today.
As a west Texan from cattle country, I know a little bit about
droughts. The record-breaking drought that we faced last year in Texas,
that's still being felt this year, by the way, was heart breaking for
all of us, especially those who make their living raising livestock and
growing crops that feed and clothe our Nation.
I'm sometimes called upon to explain how good can come out of a bad
situation. Maybe this is one of those times. I hope my colleagues who
doubt the need for farm policy might think a little bit about what our
country's farmers and ranchers are going through right now, and then
imagine what many of them are going through without crop insurance,
which is the one and only reason why we are not in here today debating
a multi-billion dollar disaster package. In other words, an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Unfortunately, our livestock producers do not have crop insurance.
They have to depend on disaster programs instead. Regrettably, the
authority for this disaster relief has expired and must be renewed in
order for livestock producers to receive relief, and that's what this
bill does.
But the need for farm policy goes beyond addressing droughts and
whatever else Mother Nature might throw at us. It also is responding to
high foreign tariffs and subsidies that are climbing higher and higher,
breaking records, while funding for U.S. farm policy is at an all-time
low. Agriculture matters to our economy, to our balance of trade, to
U.S. jobs, and to our national security.
Importantly, the bill before us is fully paid for so it doesn't
increase the deficit. We offset the costs of using dollars from two
conservation accounts that have never been spent on the conservation
purposes that they were intended for. So there is zero impact on
conservation programs, but it'll be helping farmers and ranchers.
I know many of my colleagues say we should be passing a 5-year farm
bill instead of disaster relief. No one is more committed to enacting
long-term farm policy than I am. I will continue to work that way. We
passed a good one in the House Agriculture Committee under the
leadership of Chairman Lucas, but I think everyone appreciates the time
it will take to pass this House and get to conference. That is
extensive, and something our producers don't have the time.
I'm disappointed in some of our farm groups that they've objected to
the various ways the House is working and attempting to advance our
Nation's farm policy. A number of these groups are the very same groups
that insisted on dragging out this debate by trying to advance farm
policy that only works, if at all, for one region of the country, or
only for a couple of crops. Our livestock producers need help now, and
that's what the House is about to do, I hope, and that is always
respond in times of natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill.
Mr. LUCAS. 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. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me the
time here to speak, and I rise in support today of H.R. 6233, the
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. As we all know, farmers and
ranchers are really suffering from one of the worst and most widespread
droughts to have occurred in decades.

{time} 1220

While over half of Iowa has been designated as a disaster area
because of the drought, farmers at home are really hurting and really
feeling the pain of the drought.
While the forecasts are not good for the future as far as rain and
the conditions appear to be worsening every day out there--the
temperatures near 100 degrees--we're at a critical point. Congress
can't legislate rain like we'd like to, but we can certainly provide
farmers the certainty that they need to address the disaster, which is
the worst in decades.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the livestock producers have no safety
net to fall back on because the disaster programs expired last year.
Extending these programs to the end of fiscal year 2012 will give
farmers the confidence and the certainty to prepare for what's going to
be a very difficult year.
We're all pushing as hard as we can, doing everything possible to get
a new farm bill done, and I would encourage everyone to work to that
end. In the meantime, this is what we have to do. We need to do this
immediately to give certainty to those livestock producers all over the
country that are facing a very, very difficult situation with the
drought.
So again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support H.R.
6233. Let's move this today and then get on to a new farm bill.
Mr. LUCAS. 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.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the drought which is devastating U.S.
producers of agriculture throughout the Nation poses a serious, serious
threat to every American family who plans on visiting the grocery store
this year. American farmers and ranchers are on the ropes right now,
and this legislation is desperately needed.
I can't tell you how important the leadership and cooperation of
Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson has been on this issue
because, statistically speaking, this is the worst drought since the
1950s. The forage situation for livestock is the worst since 1933.
In southern Missouri, the drought is breaking the life's work of
dairy farmers like Stacey McCallister, who wrote this to me:

I've been talking to some farmers, and the feed prices are
going to put us out of business. Milk isn't coming up at all
on price and feed costs are doubling in cases. The sorriest

[[Page H5657]]

hay that you could feed a heifer is at $200 a ton; I used to
buy it at $30 a ton. I feel like my heart is in my stomach
right now.

This picture of his farm tells the heartbreaking story. According to
Stacey, even if you want to sell off part of your herd, you're out of
luck. There's no more room for cows at the sale barn where they hold
livestock auctions. There is about one penny of profit margin on the
milk he's selling today. Our response to this disaster must begin with
this effort to reinstate the emergency programs which were allowed to
expire last October. We've paid for the reauthorization of these four
programs in this legislation, and there's no reason not to renew them.

These programs are a safety net for our livestock producers in free
fall. They need this assistance, and we need to give it to them or else
risk losing the heart and soul of the agricultural backbone of this
Nation, the families who literally put food on our tables.
I urge support for this legislation at a crucial hour of need for
America's livestock producers.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. It's
better than nothing, but it's not what we should be doing.
People need to understand that this is not going to solve any
problems for anybody over August, other than the political problem that
they have where they go home and can't point to anything that got done,
so they'll be able to say they voted for a bill.
This bill is not going anyplace in the other body. They have passed
through the other body a bipartisan bill that has a better disaster
provision in it than what we're considering here today. Their position
is my position, and that is that we should be moving this bill and
getting it enacted into law.
So, out of my friendship and respect for the chairman, I am
supporting this bill. But I think he'll probably agree with me that we
need to get this bill to conference. We need to get it moved. We need
to get it done so we can get it in place by September 30, so producers
can get what they really need out of this bill, and that is a long-term
policy they know they can count on.
So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. 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. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6233,
the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. I agree that we must take
steps to assist farmer and rancher families affected by extreme drought
conditions, but doing so at the expense of national conservation
programs is a shortsighted approach. Conservation programs help
preserve farms and ranchlands, improve water quality, and enhance soil
conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitats. These funds have been
essential to Maryland farmers in protecting the quality of the
Chesapeake Bay. Maintaining funding for these programs and providing
farmers and ranchers with the opportunity to do long-term conservation
planning is one of the best investments we can make to mitigate the
impact of future droughts and disasters. Instead of pitting disaster
assistance against conservation programs, let's focus on our efforts on
reauthorizing a five-year farm bill. Farmers in my district and across
the Nation agree that a farm bill reauthorization will give them the
clarity and economic certainty they really need to plan for their
futures. I urge my colleagues to reject today's bill and move forward
with passing comprehensive reauthorization.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a devastating
drought--impacting the viability of our nation's crops and the
livelihood of farmers in 65% of the country, including Virginia. In
response today, I supported the Agriculture Disaster Assistance Act,
reauthorizing disaster assistance programs, and allowing producers to
effectively manage risk, while providing certainty to producers who are
generally ineligible for crop insurance.
This assistance does not come without a cost--one that is absorbed by
some of our nation's agriculture conservation programs. These programs
have been instrumental in aiding Virginia's agricultural community, and
I support their efforts to protect our rivers, streams and waterways
that make up the important Chesapeake Bay watershed.
I believe that we must work to ensure the stability and future of our
economy, including our nation's food sources. However as we do, we must
remain mindful of the need to conserve our natural resources which are
critical for agricultural production throughout the country. It is my
hope Congress can move to pass a comprehensive Farm Bill which will
support our nation's rich agricultural heritage while giving our
farmers the tools they need to protect our vital natural resources.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called
Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act.
This bill is anything but disaster assistance agriculture. It is a
bill by Republican leadership to provide cover for not bringing up a
real farm bill.
Farmers and ranchers do not need a temporary disaster bill--they need
a farm bill that provides disaster assistance but so farmers and
ranchers can make sound future business decisions.
Republicans often say uncertainty about ``regulation'' is harming the
economy.
Yet here we are considering a temporary measure when American
agriculture needs certainty.
It is ironic we are here considering a temporary measure that creates
uncertainty because about a year ago the United States' credit rating
was downgraded. Why? Republicans created uncertainty in the financial
markets during the debt ceiling debacle.
By taking up temporary disaster aid and not a farm bill, Republicans
must want to downgrade American agriculture.
This bill kicks the can down the road, as Republicans have done far
too often.
The House should stay and do the people's work instead of running off
on a recess.
We won't stay though, because Republicans refuse to compromise with
Democrats on paying the bills due and now the farm bill languishes.
This refusal shows us that Republicans are not serious about a farm
bill or deficit reduction, creating jobs and growing our economy.
If Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, they would bring
up one of two farm bills that are out there.
While neither bill is perfect, the Senate farm bill would reduce the
deficit by $23 billion and the House farm bill cut spending by $35
billion.
If Republicans were serious about creating jobs and growing the
economy, they would bring up a farm bill.
Just one Title of the farm bill, the energy title, has the potential
to generate $88.5 billion in economic activity and create nearly
700,000 jobs.
Finally, I oppose this temporary disaster bill not only because it
shows lack of leadership in passing a farm bill but because of its
shortsightedness in slashing conservation programs.
I represent Lake Erie, which is part of the Great Lakes region that
is responsible for more than 1.5 million jobs and generates $62 billion
in wages.
Lake Erie is under assault by a massive bloom of algae that is
turning the water into a bright green pea soup.
The substance is enough to kill a pet dog, and makes people seriously
ill. As the summer goes on, the stench will drive tens of thousands of
tourists and local residents inside with closed windows.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation
Stewardship Program are two of the most effective programs in helping
farmers and ranchers do their part to help reduce nutrient runoff
fueling the algae bloom.

[[Page H5658]]

Cutting these programs are penny wise and pound-foolish.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Let's pass a real farm
bill.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman for his
relentless leadership to get some relief to America's farmers and
ranchers who are dealing with this drought. In my home state of Iowa we
now have 42 counties that have been declared by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) as primary natural disaster areas.
The latest crop conditions report in Iowa has 18 percent of the corn
declared as ``very poor.'' Only one percent is rated as ``excellent''.
Soybeans are in a very similar situation.
Our pasture lands are in terrible condition with 55 percent of
pasture being ``very poor.'' While lands in the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) are being opened today for haying and grazing, it really
isn't going to amount to much.
As a result of these conditions, our livestock producers are going to
have a really hard time getting feed. I appreciate that this disaster
package will bring some relief, especially to those who have lost
animals due to the extreme heat.
However, let us not forget that we have work to do on a real farm
bill. We need to get the 2012 farm bill done and in proper order, so
that we do not have to do ad hoc disaster assistance packages and so
that farmers can plan for the future. I appreciate the Chairman and
Ranking Member's work on this bipartisan bill that we reported out of
Committee and look forward to us finishing our work and bringing the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act to the House
Floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 752, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 6233 is postponed.

____________________