Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, this is a sensible, bipartisan solution. It helps the country by helping those who work at our depots and other areas. I would just ask that my colleagues join this bipartisan coalition that's working in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. While I know that many people who I have worked with, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, oppose the way forward here, I rise because it is the only way forward.

Throughout this entire process, there were many things that we agreed on. The agriculture industry needs certainty. Our farmers who produce our food and fiber need the ability to plan so that they can produce a safe, reliable, and affordable food source for our country.

I know that many of us who are on the committee would have preferred that the last bill pass. I too would have preferred that it pass. As a small business owner, I can attest to the importance of having the ability to plan. If we are able to get these titles that we agree to, these 11 titles that we agree to, passed into law, then our farmers will have that ability.

I appreciate being part of the process. The farms and families in this country need the certainty of this agriculture policy.

I ask that you support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as well.

While we all share the desire to get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse, I think we've reached a delicate balance in the committee with the language that we've done here.

This is a competitive grant process. It will improve direct producer- to-consumer market opportunities. I think it's very valuable for our small farmers and our small communities.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment. This current farm bill, the olive oil provision, will simply require that both domestic and imported olive oil will be subject to the same labeling requirements. Let me restate that: the same labeling requirements for domestic and imported olive oil. Americans deserve to know that the product that is advertised on the label is the product that they are buying when they are pulling it off the shelf.

As the gentleman from New York stated, it is spot-checked right now. Less than 5 percent of the 98 percent of the oil sold in this country is actually checked as to whether or not it is labeled accurately.

U.S. growers and ethical importers have a strong interest in developing this program of cost-effective solutions since you are saving high-quality standards for the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The underlying language of the farm bill simply provides this industry the same opportunity that many other industries have been provided through the checkoff.

I share a similar concern with the gentleman who has the amendment. Commerce or the Interior might have been an appropriate place to put this, other than they simply don't have the infrastructure to handle such a program. The infrastructure is already there at the USDA. There are other examples of products outside of agriculture that have been handled there.

It simply gives the U.S. stone industry the opportunity to come together with a voluntary payment to support a marketing program to help their industry. Again, it is voluntary. A ``tax,'' by definition, is an involuntary payment to support the government. This is a voluntary payment to support an industry.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to put it in the Departments of Commerce or the Interior, but the infrastructure is already there to put it in the USDA.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the industry has simply asked for chance to participate in a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer, voluntary program in which they can use that to help promote their product. I as a conservative think that this is good for some of our small business owners, and I respectfully ask that we oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 245, I was at a funeral.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 246 I was attending a funeral.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 247 I was attending a funeral.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this FARRM Bill. I, along with many others in this room, have worked on drafting a farm bill that meets the needs of our agricultural producers and consumers.

We've taken part in audit hearings and met with producers, grocers, and consumers. We've debated agricultural policy through two midnight- hour markups on a bill that should pass every 5 years. Through all of this, I have gained knowledge of many unnecessary programs and the fraud and abuse that plagues these programs. I also have a newfound appreciation for the FARRM Bill and its value to American citizens.

My granddad always said the farm bill is for when times are bad, not when they are good.

Several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have reasons to vote against the bill. Some say it cuts too much. For others, it doesn't cut enough. Let me be clear. This bill is a good step in the right direction. It will reduce Federal spending. It reduces the fraud, abuse, and waste in many of the government programs that are in the government today.

I would like to share a few facts with you. If we don't pass this bill:

$40 billion is the amount of money that will be spent on outdated commodity programs that we have cut out of this bill;

11 million is the number of additional acres in conservation programs that would receive a government program that we have cut out of this bill.

We have also reduced SNAP payments for about 2 million people who should not qualify for them anyway.

Some of the reforms to the nutrition title include:

Restrictions in the use of the LIHEAP program;

Eliminating lottery winners from qualifying for SNAP benefits;

And eliminating State performance bonuses and advertising for the program.

As my friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway) has asked: ``Is this a legislative moment or a theater moment?''

Madam Chair, I submit that this is a true legislative moment. During this time, we need to act on the facts. Farmers and families need the certainty of long-term agricultural policies so they can continue to be the cornerstone of our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013. And I, too, would like to thank many of the Members on the other side of the aisle, as well as mine, specifically, Mr. McIntyre from North Carolina for his work on the Ag Committee on this piece of legislation.

This bill clarifies congressional intent by providing a clear exemption for non-financial end users that qualify for the clearing exception under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Across the country, consumers and businesses alike are confronted with risks that are associated with their day-to-day operations. To manage these risks, businesses use over-the-counter derivatives to provide price certainty. Consumers, in turn, benefit from these risk- management practices through lower volatility in the day-to-day prices of the goods and services that they purchase.

By passing this legislation, Congress is providing a specific exemption from clearing and margin requirements for businesses and individuals who are not financial institutions. This accounts for less than 10 percent of the capital of the derivatives markets. It relieves the burdensome regulations and keeps the U.S. economy moving. This balance protects the consumer while providing a pro-growth environment for business.

To further the initial goal, H.R. 634 clarifies Congress' intent of keeping much-needed capital in the U.S. markets, which plays an important role in our country's continued economic growth.

I would also like to reiterate the fact that last year Congress passed this same piece of legislation 370-24. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 634, so that businesses and individuals may benefit from the day-to-day risk-management prices that this will provide.

Mr. Speaker, the President made a pledge to Americans: If you elect me and you like your current health care, you'll be able to keep it.

The reality today is that nearly 7 million people are set to lose their employer-sponsored health insurance when the President's health care law goes into full effect. On January 1, many Americans will be forced into an exchange program that has not even been set up.

Nancy Pelosi promised the American people Congress must pass the bill so you can find out what's in it. The Democratic-controlled House passed the bill almost 4 years ago. They didn't know what was in the bill then, and they don't know what to do now.

We're less than 7 months away from many Americans being forced into exchanges. Yet they don't know what options are available to them.

What we do know is that consumers are already looking at sharp premium increases. The very people who were promised the most, those young people under the age of 29, are expected to get increases somewhere in the range of 200 percent.

This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Most Americans operate under a budget. Americans need to know what the increases in their health care costs will be and what plan options are available. Americans need to know the effects that this legislation will have on their lives, and they need to know now.

The administration has had 4 years to figure this out, and the only thing they've figured out is that they don't know what to do.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia for allowing me a few minutes to speak on this issue.

I rise today in support of the Collins-Scott amendment, which requires that any funds received from the sale of helium will be used to pay down our country's debt.

I'm sure many of my colleagues would agree when I say our country's deficit is one of the top problems that we face. In fact, if we continue on this path, by the time my 13-year-old son is a freshman in college, this country will be paying more interest on the debt than we spend on national defense.

I understand this problem cannot be solved with one swift move; however, if we are not able to make reasonable changes to policies and allow additional revenue to reduce our debt, our children and grandchildren will not be given the chance to continue this country's greatness.

Due to the importance of protecting our children and grandchildren, we should support this amendment. It puts us one step closer to addressing our country's biggest problem. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove Representative Joe Wilson from H.R. 1202.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85 I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

What I want to remind the people of is that this House has twice passed legislation to repeal the sequester. The Senate has not done anything. Quite honestly, they have just chosen not to do their job over there.

The President has yet to give us a written proposal. But this House, the people's House, twice voted to repeal the sequester with responsible spending cuts.

Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland. I certainly enjoyed serving with you in the Georgia House where we balanced the budget on an annual basis and made cuts certainly much larger than this on a percentage basis. Quite honestly, we did it on an annual or a semiannual basis when we were there.

I want to point out one thing that you talked about that's not being talked about much here, and that is that the total cut that we're talking about is a little less than 2.5 percent of Federal spending. The problem with the sequester is not that it's an unreasonable amount that's being cut; it's where it's being cut from.

So here we are less than 48 hours from the President's sequester, our Commander in Chief's sequester, that's going to go into effect and set into place $1.2 trillion over the course, ladies and gentlemen, of 10 years. That's one of the things that needs to be pointed out. It's not $1.2 trillion over the course of this year; it's over 10 years. So you're talking about $100 billion a year out of a little better than a $3 trillion annual budget.

Of this cut that our Commander in Chief has insisted on, over half of that is going to come from national defense and our men and women in uniform and our civilian workforce and taking its toll on them. Our Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, I thought did a great job when he actually explained it as hollowing out our military. He told the truth about that and just what the Commander in Chief's budget reductions were going to do to our military. Obviously, we have a new Secretary of Defense coming in now, and I can't help but wonder if Secretary Panetta speaking out about what those cuts were going to do to the military isn't one of the things that maybe led to his replacement.

On October 22--just to give you a couple of specifics--in his campaign for election as our Nation's Commander in Chief, the President promised that his sequestration ``would not happen.'' The President, the Commander in Chief, promised that it would not happen. He went to great lengths to assure Americans that are working in our military and on our military bases, our civilian workforce--I represent Robins Air Force Base--he told them this will not happen. He told our defense contractors to not comply with the law and actually issue the notices that were required under the law that furloughs and layoffs may be coming.

I personally think it was politically motivated, but that's just a personal stance of mine, Mr. Speaker.

On February 6, I asked the President for a solution. I sent a letter. I've got the letter right here. I'm sure that somebody at the White House got it. We have never gotten any response from any letter that we have sent to the White House as a Member of Congress. We simply asked him to give us a written proposal on what he would do given his choice of having it exactly his way and replacing the sequester. Again, no response, no action.

On February 15, he came to our State, Georgia, and didn't go to any of our military installations. We have seven major military installations and over a dozen major military communities in the State of Georgia. He went to a county and he talked about expanding the role of the Federal Government in public education as we were approaching the sequester. The men and women at Robins Air Force Base and the other bases were left wondering what was going to happen to their paycheck. He did not even address the issue while he was in Georgia with our seven major military installations and our 12 major military communities.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't vote for the sequester, but what I'll tell you is I'm reminded of what Teddy Roosevelt said when I look at the national debt and the things we're facing right now:

The best thing to do is the right thing, the next best

thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing is nothing.

We have to cut Federal spending or we're going to rob the next generation of Americans of the American Dream.

So I would say that here we are as a House having passed two separate bills to undo the President's sequester and 48 hours prior to the sequester going into action, and all we've heard from the President is just words. He hasn't had the guts to put a proposal in writing before this House for the American people to see. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, at the 11th hour with no action from the President, no response to my letter or any other Member's letter, to my knowledge, no plan to Congress, no plan to America. He's just a President, a Commander in Chief that's willing to let this happen to our military. Half the cuts are coming from our military. What kind of Commander in Chief do we have?

Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and thank you so much for doing this.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2013.

Dear President Obama: As the representative of the Eighth

Congressional District of Georgia, home to Robins and Moody

Air Force Bases and a member of the House Armed Services

Committee, I am very concerned about the impact that

sequestration will have on our national security. As you are

aware, on March 1, 2013, $500 billion in defense cuts will go

into effect unless a law is enacted to prevent it. According

to many of our nation's top military leaders, the

indiscriminate cuts caused by sequestration would hollow out

our forces and severely degrade our military capabilities.

On October 22, 2012, you promised that ``sequestration will

not happen.'' You went to great lengths to reassure Americans

that you would work to prevent it, and you even urged defense

contractors not to issue layoff notifications required under

law. Given your role as our nation's Commander in Chief, I

believe that you share my concern over a hollowed military

force. However, without your leadership I am fearful that a

solution will not be reached.

We in the House of Representatives passed several bills

during the 112th Congress, including H.R. 3662 and H.R. 5652,

that would repeal the sequester. Based on your statements,

you do not support these bills, yet have offered no

alternative. Furthermore, representatives from your

Administration were highly ambiguous in explaining your plan

for preventing sequestration cuts. In a hearing on August 1,

2012 Acting OMB Director Zients testified that your plan to

address sequestration was your 2013 budget proposal. Yet this

is not a real proposal Congress could act upon, and your

budget did not receive a single vote in either the House or

the Senate.

We are running low on time to address sequestration and

your administration's lack of meaningful action is concerning

to many of my constituents. I urge you to take a more active

role in resolving these senseless cuts to our national

defense. I look forward to your response and to reviewing a

detailed and concrete proposal that Congress can act on so

that we can cooperate in a bipartisan manner to resolve

sequestration.

Sincerely,

Austin Scott,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize a man who has served his country, created hundreds of new jobs in my district and is a loyal father and husband of over 50 years. I am proud to say he is one of my constituents and would like to thank him for a lifetime of dedication and commitment to his country.

Edward D. Northrop, Jr., graduated from Virginia Military Institute in 1962. He then served 20 years in the United States Army from 1962- 1982, graduating from both Airborne and Ranger schools. He served 2 tours in Vietnam in the 4th Infantry Division, serving for the Red Warriors, C Company and as HHQ Company Commander. During this time, he received many awards, including the Combat Infantry Badge, Silver Star and Army Commendation Medal for Heroism. Ed retired as a LTC in 1982.

Later that year, Ed became a Burger King Franchisee and currently owns six locations--four of which are in my district--employing 180 Georgians. Due to his commitment to excellence, Ed has achieved some of the highest volumes of any Burger King restaurateur in the Southeast. He also is committed to serving the franchisee community through his work with the National Franchisee Association, NFA. Through NFA, Ed has served as President of the New South Coalition of Burger King Franchisees, on the NFA Board of Directors and on NFA's Government Relations Committee for over sixteen years.

Ed is also very active in his local church and served on the vestry multiple years. He is also involved in local adopt a school programs as well as the Special Olympics program.

On behalf of Georgia's Eighth Congressional District, thank you, Ed, for your unwavering commitment to your country, your family and the NFA. We are proud to call you one of our own.