H5650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply 

with respect to fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter. 

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. 

f 

AUTHORIZING THE ARCHITECT OF 

THE CAPITOL TO ESTABLISH 

BATTERY RECHARGING STATIONS UNDER JURISDICTION OF 

HOUSE 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent to take from the Speaker’s 

table the bill (H.R. 1402) to authorize 

the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas 

under the jurisdiction of the House of 

Representatives at no net cost to the 

Federal Government, and ask for its 

immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 1402 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BATTERY RECHARGING STATIONS 

FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES 

IN PARKING AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT NO NET COST TO 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

(a) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term 

‘‘covered employee’’ means— 

(1) an employee whose pay is disbursed by 

the Chief Administrative Officer of the 

House of Representatives; or 

(2) any other individual who is authorized 

to park in any parking area under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives on 

Capitol Grounds. 

(b) AUTHORITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), 

funds appropriated to the Architect of the 

Capitol under the heading ‘‘CAPITOL POWER

PLANT’’ under the heading ‘‘ARCHITECT OF 

THE CAPITOL’’ in any fiscal year are available to construct, operate, and maintain on 

a reimbursable basis battery recharging stations in parking areas under the jurisdiction 

of the House of Representatives on Capitol 

Grounds for use by privately owned vehicles 

used by Members of the House of Representatives (including the Delegates or Resident 

Commissioner to the Congress) or covered 

employees. 

(2) VENDORS AUTHORIZED.—In carrying out 

paragraph (1), the Architect of the Capitol 

may use 1 or more vendors on a commission 

basis. 

(3) APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION.—The Architect of the Capitol may construct or direct the construction of battery recharging 

stations described under paragraph (1) 

after— 

(A) submission of written notice detailing 

the numbers and locations of the battery recharging stations to the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives; and 

(B) approval by that Committee. 

(c) FEES AND CHARGES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

the Architect of the Capitol shall charge fees 

or charges for electricity provided to Members and covered employees sufficient to 

cover the costs to the Architect of the Capitol to carry out this section, including costs 

to any vendors or other costs associated with 

maintaining the battery recharging stations. 

(2) APPROVAL OF FEES OR CHARGES.—The 

Architect of the Capitol may establish and 

adjust fees or charges under paragraph (1) 

after— 

(A) submission of written notice detailing 

the amount of the fee or charge to be established or adjusted to the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives; and 

(B) approval by that Committee. 

(d) DEPOSIT AND AVAILABILITY OF FEES, 

CHARGES, AND COMMISSIONS.—Any fees, 

charges, or commissions collected by the Architect of the Capitol under this section 

shall be— 

(1) deposited in the Treasury to the credit 

of the appropriations account described 

under subsection (b); and 

(2) available for obligation without further 

appropriation during— 

(A) the fiscal year collected; and 

(B) the fiscal year following the fiscal year 

collected. 

(e) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than 30 

days after the end of each fiscal year, the Architect of the Capitol shall submit a report 

on the financial administration and cost recovery of activities under this section with 

respect to that fiscal year to the Committee 

on House Administration of the House of 

Representatives. 

(e) REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after 

the end of each fiscal year, the Architect of the 

Capitol shall submit a report on the financial 

administration and cost recovery of activities 

under this section with respect to that fiscal 

year to the Committee on House Administration 

of the House of Representatives. 

(2) AVOIDING SUBSIDY.— 

(A) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 3 years 

after the date of enactment of this Act and 

every 3 years thereafter, the Architect of the 

Capitol shall submit a report to the Committee 

on House Administration of the House of Representatives determining whether Members (including any Delegate or Resident Commissioner 

to Congress) and covered employees using battery charging stations as authorized by this Act 

are receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers. 

(B) MODIFICATION OF RATES AND FEES.—If a 

determination is made under subparagraph (A) 

that a subsidy is being received, the Architect of 

the Capitol shall submit a plan to the Committee 

on House Administration of the House of Representatives on how to update the program to 

ensure no subsidy is being received. If the committee does not act on the plan within 60 days, 

the Architect of the Capitol shall take appropriate steps to increase rates or fees to ensure 

reimbursement for the cost of the program consistent with an appropriate schedule for amortization, to be charged to those using the charging stations. 

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply 

with respect to fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter. 

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DANIEL E. 

LUNGREN OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill at the desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Amend section 1(e) to read as follows: 

(e) REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days 

after the end of each fiscal year, the Architect of the Capitol shall submit a report on 

the financial administration and cost recovery of activities under this section with respect to that fiscal year to the Committee on 

House Administration of the House of Representatives. 

(2) AVOIDING SUBSIDY.— 

(A) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 3 

years after the date of enactment of this Act 

and every 3 years thereafter, the Architect of 

the Capitol shall submit a report to the Committee on House Administration of the 

House of Representatives determining 

whether Members (including any Delegate or 

Resident Commissioner to Congress) and 

covered employees using battery charging 

stations as authorized by this Act are receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers. 

(B) MODIFICATION OF RATES AND FEES.—If a 

determination is made under subparagraph 

(A) that a subsidy is being received, the Architect of the Capitol shall submit a plan to 

the Committee on House Administration of 

the House of Representatives on how to update the program to ensure no subsidy is 

being received. If the committee does not act 

on the plan within 60 days, the Architect of 

the Capitol shall take appropriate steps to 

increase rates or fees to ensure reimbursement for the cost of the program consistent 

with an appropriate schedule for amortization, to be charged to those using the charging stations. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 

reading of the amendment be dispensed 

with. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, was read the 

third time, and passed, and a motion to 

reconsider was laid on the table. 

f 

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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5651 

(iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other farm organizational structure organized under State law. 

(2) FARM-RAISED FISH.—The term ‘‘farmraised 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 cashleased 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). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

(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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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. 

b 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 governmentmandated 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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. 

f 

PATHWAY TO JOB CREATION 

THROUGH A SIMPLER, FAIRER 

TAX CODE ACT OF 2012 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant 

to House Resolution 747, I call up the 

bill (H.R. 6169) to provide for expedited 

consideration of a bill providing for 

comprehensive tax reform, and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 747, the bill is 

considered read. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6169 

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 ‘‘Pathway to 

Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax 

Code Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that the following problems exist with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (in this section referred to 

as the ‘‘tax code’’): 

(1) The tax code is unfair, containing hundreds of provisions that only benefit certain 

special interests, resulting in a system of 

winners and losers. 

(2) The tax code violates the fundamental 

principle of equal justice by subjecting families in similar circumstances to significantly 

different tax bills. 

(3)(A) Many tax preferences, sometimes referred to as ‘‘tax expenditures,’’ are similar 

to government spending—instead of markets 

directing economic resources to their most 

efficient uses, the Government directs resources to other uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. 

(B) The exclusions, deductions, credits, and 

special rules that make up such tax expenditures amount to over $1 trillion per year, 

nearly matching the total amount of annual 

revenue that is generated from the income 

tax itself. 

(C) In some cases, tax subsidies can literally take the form of spending through the 

tax code, redistributing taxes paid by some 

Americans to individuals and businesses who 

do not pay any income taxes at all. 

(4) The failure to adopt a permanent tax 

code with stable statutory tax policy has 

created greater economic uncertainty. Tax 

rates have been scheduled to increase sharply in 3 of the last 5 years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. 

Additionally, approximately 70 other, more 

targeted tax provisions expired in 2011 or are 

currently scheduled to expire by the end of 

2012. 

(5) Since 2001, there have been nearly 4,500 

changes made to the tax code, averaging 

more than one each day over the past decade. 

(6) The tax code’s complexity leads nearly 

nine out of ten families either to hire tax 

preparers (60 percent) or purchase software 

(29 percent) to file their taxes, while 71 percent of unincorporated businesses are forced 

to pay someone else to prepare their taxes. 

(7) The cost of complying with the tax code 

is too burdensome, forcing individuals, families, and employers to spend over six billion 

hours and over $160 billion per year trying to 

comply with the law and pay the actual tax 

owed. 

(8) Compliance with the current tax code is 

a financial hardship for employers that falls 

disproportionately on small businesses, 

which spend an average of $74 per hour on 

tax-related compliance, making it the most 

expensive paperwork burden they encounter. 

(9) Small businesses have been responsible 

for two-thirds of the jobs created in the 

United States over the past 15 years, and approximately half of small-business profits 

are taxed at the current top 2 individual 

rates. 

(10) The historic range for tax revenues 

collected by the Federal government has 

averaged 18 to 19 percent of Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP), but will rise to 21.2 percent 

of GDP under current law—a level never 

reached, let alone sustained, in the Nation’s 

history. 

(11) The current tax code is highly punitive, with a top Federal individual income 

tax rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb 

to over 40 percent in 2013 when taking into 

account certain hidden rates), meaning some 

Americans could face a combined local, 

State and Federal tax rate of 50 percent. 

(12) The tax code contains harmful provisions, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax 

(AMT), which was initially designed to affect 

only the very highest-income taxpayers but 

now threatens more than 30 million middleclass households because of a flawed design. 

(13) As of April 1, 2012, the United States 

achieved the dubious distinction of having 

the highest corporate tax rate (39.2 percent 

for Federal and State combined) in the developed world. 

(14) The United States corporate tax rate is 

more than 50 percent higher than the average rate of member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—a factor that discourages employers and investors from locating jobs and 

investments in the United States. 

(15) The United States has become an 

outlier in that it still uses a ‘‘worldwide’’ 

system of taxation—one that has not been 

substantially reformed in 50 years, when the 

United States accounted for nearly half of 

global economic output and had no serious 

competitors around the world. 

(16) The combination of the highest corporate tax rate with an antiquated ‘‘worldwide’’ system subjects American companies 

to double taxation when they attempt to 

compete with foreign companies in overseas 

markets and then reinvest their earnings in 

the United States. 

(17) The Nation’s outdated tax code has 

contributed to the fact that the world’s largest companies are more likely to be 

headquartered overseas today than at any 

point in the last 50 years: In 1960, 17 of the 

world’s 20 largest companies were based in 

the United States; by 2010, that number sank 

to a mere six out of 20. 

(18) The United States has one of the highest levels of taxation on capital—taxing it 

once at the corporate level and then again at 

the individual level—with integrated tax 

rates on certain investment income already 

reaching roughly 50 percent (and scheduled 

to reach nearly 70 percent in 2013). 

(19) The United States’ overall taxation of 

capital is higher than all but four of the 38 

countries that make up the OECD and the 

BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China). 

(b) PURPOSES.—It is the purpose of this Act 

to provide for enactment of comprehensive 

tax reform in 2013 that— 

(1) protects taxpayers by creating a fairer, 

simpler, flatter tax code for individuals and 

families by— 

(A) lowering marginal tax rates and broadening the tax base; 

(B) eliminating special interest loopholes; 

(C) reducing complexity in the tax code, 

making tax compliance easier and less costly; 

(D) repealing the Alternative Minimum 

Tax; 

(E) maintaining modern levels of progressivity so as to not overburden any one group 

or further erode the tax base; 

(F) making it easier for Americans to save; 

and 

(G) reducing the tax burdens imposed on 

married couples and families; 

(2) is comprehensive (addressing both individual and corporate rates), so as to have the 

maximum economic impact by benefitting 

employers and their employees regardless of 

how a business is structured; 

(3) results in tax revenue consistent with 

historical norms; 

(4) spurs greater investment, innovation 

and job creation, and therefore increases 

economic activity and the size of the economy on a dynamic basis as compared to the 

current tax code; and 

(5) makes American workers and businesses more competitive by— 

(A) creating a stable, predictable tax code 

under which families and employers are best 

able to plan for the future; 

(B) keeping taxes on small businesses low; 

(C) reducing America’s corporate tax rate, 

which is currently the highest in the industrialized world; 

(D) maintaining a level of parity between 

individual and corporate rates to reduce economic distortions; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE