Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment builds on the reforms in the underlying bill and scraps the proposed ``supply management'' program. Doing so will allow farmers and dairy producers to expand and meet the growing global demand for American dairy products. It will grow our exports and grow our economy.

It also will protect families and farmers. Families are already having enough trouble making ends meet. This amendment will help bring down prices for our constituents by providing more opportunity and fairness to dairy farmers across the country.

It also will save taxpayers dollars. This amendment saves taxpayers another $15 million on top of the savings in the underlying bill. Every penny counts.

This amendment will create better and more market-driven policies for our farmers. Supply management is not the way to go. I support the Goodlatte-Scott amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Gibbs-Kind amendment to title I of the FARRM Bill that sets the target price for all crops at 55 percent of the 5-year rolling Olympic average and changes the acreage available for target price support to 85 percent of the farmer's base acres.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 90 seconds to Representative Kind from the great State of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to talk a little bit. Back in the 1995 farm bill, Congress made a decision to move the programs to be more market- oriented, where farmers would plant towards the market and not towards the program.

As past-State Farm Bureau president and also a farmer, when I talk to my farmer colleagues, they want the check to come from the market and not the government. And my fear is, my concern is that the House-marked bill will distort the market prices by setting the target prices, as Representative Kind said, too high.

Let's take corn, for example. We had a drought. We saw the prices scoot up to very high levels. Well, we're seeing some rainfall, the weather kind of moderates over and averages out over a several-year period, and it's possible we could see the prices of corn, for example, come down and drop below these very high-set target rates, and farmers could still be profitable, still be making some money on a per-bushel basis, depending on their yield--yield has to be a factor. And when you have price loss coverage, yield is not factored in, where they could actually still be making some money on a per-bushel basis per acre and still get a government payout. That's market distortion.

It's interesting to note that the organizations that support my amendment, the National Corn Growers, the Soybean Association, many national organizations and State organizations that represent thousands of farmers out there strongly support my amendment, which, as Representative Kind said, cuts $12 billion from the committee-marked bill.

You find that kind of odd. The reason is they don't want to go back to the previous policies of 1995 where we have market distortions and farmers are planting for the program and the market is not dictating it, and they never get out of that rut.

Another concern I have is WTO concerns. When we change this to planted acres, direct benefits paid to planted acres, that's ripe for a WTO complaint and for a trade war. And this will increase, I believe, overplanting and farmers reacting for the wrong reasons and not the market reasons.

So, on that basis, Mr. Chairman, with the strong support of many of the national commodity organizations that represent thousands of farmers and strongly do not want this, we can save taxpayers $12 billion and keep a market-oriented bill and not risk exposure to taxpayers if the markets collapse to more historical levels.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I think it is very important that we do have a safety net. But the safety net can't be at a level where prices are set at or close or even above the cost of production. That distorts markets. But we need a safety net to protect our American farmers and our rural communities and continue to ensure that we have the safest and most affordable food supply in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that commitment, I will respectfully withdraw my amendment from consideration, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Zackery Wallick of Dundee, Ohio, who is the recipient of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with the V, the fifth-highest award for his service.

Zackery received this medal for putting himself in great danger in order to protect a fellow wounded marine in Afghanistan in August of 2010. He was serving as a first team leader of a regimental combat team when a grenade was thrown at him and a fellow marine by Taliban forces. Without hesitation, Zackery threw himself on the marine closest to the explosion, shielding him from the blast.

Thankfully, neither of the marines were injured. Zackery's display of heroism deserves the utmost respect, and I'm proud to honor him today. Zackery has been honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and is now considering attending college. He hopes to pursue a career in law enforcement as a parole officer.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the day that ObamaCare is detrimental to all Americans. The Unaffordable Lack of Care Act will cost almost $2 trillion, raise taxes by $1.1 trillion, and cut Medicare by $716 billion.

Despite the President's statement that premiums would decrease by $2,500 under ObamaCare, the average family premium has grown over $3,000 and climbing. Over 30 studies have concluded that the law will make health care premiums more unaffordable for Americans. Furthermore, young adults could see their premiums increase on an average between 145 and 189 percent next year.

Even Democrats are beginning to jump off the ObamaCare bandwagon. The architect of the bill recently referred to the law as a ``train wreck,'' and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated she did not anticipate how complicated it would be to implement the bill.

In light of the recent news that the IRS was deliberately targeting Americans, can we really trust them to be in charge of our health care?

The bottom line is the President's health care law is a bad one. Our job creators are citing the unknowns surrounding it as reasons for planned layoffs and why they cannot expand their businesses.

If the Senate really wants to pass a jobs bill, then they should listen to the American people and support repeal and replace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I am outraged by the actions that this White House is putting on the American public, unnecessary hardship in their furloughing of air traffic controllers. This is not necessary.

Out of a $10 billion operating budget, they have almost $3 billion of nonpersonnel operation costs that they can make cuts there first. It would include $500 million for consultants, $325 million for supplies and travel, and $143 million to address their 46 fleet of aircraft. Aircraft travel in this time period is down 27 percent. This is unnecessary.

Today we hear reports of air traffic controllers reporting that they've been instructed by management to make it as tough as possible on the traveling public. This is nothing but political rhetoric to gain and put pressure on the Congress to pass more tax increases. I think it's a despicable attitude for this White House, and we should address it with the American public. It's despicable and it's outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Ashland University women's basketball team for winning the NCAA Division II Championship. The Ashland Eagles earned Ashland University's first basketball national championship with a 71-56 victory over New York's Dowling College on Friday, March 29, 2013.

I would like to congratulate the Eagles MVP, AU senior Kari Daugherty, for contributing 26 points to the win. Ms. Daugherty was also honored with the Player of the Year title for the division.

I would also like to congratulate Coach Sue Ramsey for leading her team to victory. This sportsmanship, determination, and hard work displayed by the Ashland Eagles throughout the season has been unparalleled. This momentous accomplishment deserves the most sincere congratulations, and we're very proud of Ashland University and the Ashland Eagles.

Go Eagles.

Mr. Speaker, currently we are experiencing one of the worst economic recoveries in the history of our Nation. It's a stagnant economy, and this should not be the new normal. Our budget is a blueprint for economic growth and job creation.

I can't stress the differences between our budget and the Senate Democrat budget. Their budget raises taxes by over $1 trillion and never balances. This is totally irresponsible.

We cannot continue to borrow nearly $4 billion every day. Current policies and the Senate Democrats' plan is suffocating our economy and job growth.

Our budget brings us to a balanced budget using tax dollars in a fiscally responsible manner, commonsense regulatory tax reforms, and an energy policy that results in economic growth and job creation.

Article IV, section 3:

``New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

``The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to

prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.''

Article IV, section 4:

``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Larry Lang of Big Prairie, OH who has spent over twenty years of his life serving the Holmes County community through the Red Cross, local school boards, Farm Bureau and other programs with outstanding dedication, honor and merit. Mr. Lang is a model citizen and his efforts are truly inspiring. He has been an excellent example and partner in working with the Amish community and his amazing efforts in recruiting platelet donors have saved countless lives.

Mr. Lang's strong relationship with the Amish community in Holmes County has resulted in an Amish representative being present on the Holmes County Chapter board and has led to thousands of hours of volunteer service from the Amish community. Mr. Lang has served as assistant director of the Holmes County Chapter of the American Red Cross and is the recipient of this year's prestigious Biomedical Partnership Award from the American Red Cross for his tremendous efforts resulting in 490 donors, 3600 platelet units and approximately 6100 single donor platelet units. Mr. Lang personally made over 300 trips to support, donate and bring donors to the Cleveland apheresis center.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to represent a man who has worked tirelessly on behalf of others and who has made such a positive and lasting impact on my community. I ask all of our colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Larry Lang for receiving the Biomedical Partnership Award from the American Red Cross.

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

Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment because it strikes an important provision in the bill that streamlines the section 404 permit process, not just for coal operations, but also for billions of dollars of economic activity in this Nation.

One of the loudest complaints we hear in Congress is how long it takes

the Federal Government to reach determination on permit requests. The Army Corps of Engineers is the lead Agency responsible for concluding the section 404 permit determinations. But the Clean Water Act requires the Corps to seek consultation with other Agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sadly, all too often, this consultation is where the needless delays occur, not because of the Corps' inaction, but because of the failure of the other agencies to provide timely information. This section, title V, simply sets a more reasonable timeframe for Federal agencies to get information to the Corps so a permit decision can be made in a timely manner.

To many of us, it is strange to see this amendment from those who purport to extol the virtues of Big Government since this amendment makes it clear they don't believe Big Government is competent enough to reach a decision in a reasonable amount of time.

This section of title V, the language which has already passed the House in a resounding bipartisan majority, will streamline the time for the consuming permit application process and ensure that $220 billion in annual economic activity associated with section 404 activities does not grind to a halt. Time is money, and this is about jobs. The slower the time it takes to get these permits done, it holds up economic job activity and the creation of jobs all across America in all sectors. I urge all Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment. I chair the committee. We had the hearings on this issue. And let's get straight what this issue is. His amendment stops a revocation of a permit after it's been issued. And what the gentleman just referred to is a permit. During the application process the law allows the EPA to veto a permit. But after it's been approved, this amendment takes care of not being able to revoke it years later, in the instance that it was done.

Keep in mind, the revocation that occurred was not because they were in violation of the permit. It was nothing but political theater. There was no violation of the permit. The State of West Virginia EPA stated that and the Army Corps said there was no violation of permit. This is revocation that sets a bad dangerous, precedent to economic growth in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Infrastructure Protection Act. Almost four decades ago, when Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and the States partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing with the day-to-day water pollution control matters to the States.

For most of these almost-four decades, this system of cooperative federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the States.

The EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations that a State standard meets the minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act.

The EPA also has inserted itself into the States' and the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decision and is second-guessing States' and other agencies' permitting decisions.

EPA's actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and are unprecedented.

Title V of H.R. 3409 is the text of H.R. 2018, a bill that has already been approved by the House of Representatives overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote. Title V of H.R. 3409 will clarify and restore the long-standing balance that has existed between the States and the EPA as co-regulators under the Clean Water Act and preserve the authority of the States to make determinations relating to their water quality standards and permitting.

The language in title V was carefully and narrowly crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own water quality standards and permits without undue interference or second-guessing from the EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions.

Title V reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a State has adopted, and EPA already approved, a water quality standard for that pollutant.

Title V restricts the EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State's NPDES water quality permitting program, or from limiting Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with that State.

Further, title V restricts the EPA from objecting to NPDES permits issued by a State. Moreover, title V clarifies that the EPA can veto an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision when the State concurs with the veto.

These limitations apply only in situations where the EPA is attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits- all Federal policies on a State's water quality program.

By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, title V in no way affects EPA's proper role in reviewing States' permits and standards and coordinating pollution control efforts between the States.

The EPA just has to return to a more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the State's implementation of the Clean Water Act.

Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean Water Act, and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States.

In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens.

Title V of H.R. 3409 returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between States and the Federal Government in regard to the environment that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for.

I urge passage of H.R. 3409 and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who is understanding of what's happening in the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the revocation of the permits.

As a freshman here in Congress, I've been here not quite 2 years, and I have witnessed one of the most egregious things I have ever seen--I call it un-American. I think maybe I will just talk for a couple of minutes here and give the example of what happened with that, which just blew me away when I learned what happened.

We had an operation in the State Mr. Rahall represents that went through 10 years of an environmental impact study--did everything they did, went beyond what they needed to do. In 2007, they were granted their permits and they started the operation up, the mining operation. In 2010, when this administration came into power, they revoked their permits. And I was arguing then that they didn't have the authority under the Clean Water Act to revoke the permit 3 years later, especially when there was no due reason, no cause.

We held hearings on this in my committee. What we discovered is that the State of West Virginia EPA did not support those actions, and the Army Corps of Engineers stated that there were no problems at the operation, there were no permit violations. So this is the first time in American history, I believe, that a permit to be in business was revoked when there were no permit violations.

Now, this sets a very dangerous precedent because lots of entities, not just in the coal industry, but lots of entities have to have a permit from the government to be in business. And if the government can come in and take your permit for no true cause, real cause, not in violation of the permit, who's going to invest? How are we going to grow this economy?

This is all about jobs and growing the economy. And so this is why it's so important that title V of this bill needs to be passed.

I want to applaud Mr. Rahall and his support of that because he understands what the workers in his State are going through, and as we saw this week, all the thousands of layoffs of coal miners because there is a war on coal, and it's a war on our economy and it lessens our opportunity and, in essence, our freedoms.

So I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are absolutely right in that, currently, there is an assault going on with regard to the Clean Water Act; but it is not by us, rather by this administration. We are not trying to roll back the Clean Water Act but, instead, allow it to work as it was written.

This administration is currently trying to circumvent congressional intent and expand the scope of the law beyond its drafted words. This guidance would substantially change the Agency's policy on waters subject to the jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, undermine the regulatory community's rights and obligations under the Clean Water Act, and erode the Federal-State partnership that has long existed between the States and the Federal Government in implementing the Clean Water Act.

By developing this guidance, the Agencies have ignored calls from State agencies and environmental groups, among others, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures; and they have avoided consulting with the States, which are supposed to be the agencies partnering in and implementing the Clean Water Act. The agencies cannot circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act through this guidance or change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statute's implementing regulations.

If the administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle seek statutory changes in the Clean Water Act, then a proposal must be submitted here in Congress for legislative action, and we should have a healthy debate. Until that time, we must stop this current process.

Also, I would like to add to the gentleman's earlier comments in that I think the intent of the Clean Water Act passed constitutional muster because of the word ``navigable'' in the Interstate Commerce Clause. This guidance put out essentially circumvents the word ``navigable,'' so I have to raise a question of the constitutionality of this type of amendment.

I urge strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln signing into law an act of Congress establishing the United States Department of Agriculture. Since May 15, 1862, the USDA's work on agriculture, economic development, science, natural resource conservation and many other important issues has impacted the lives of generations of Americans.

As the first Member of Congress who has also served as President of a state farm bureau and a farmer of 30 years, I know firsthand the valuable programs the USDA provides to rural America. Whether you need help with growing, grazing, or international trade, the USDA works to ensure that Ohio's number one industry remains a viable part of American society. The USDA has taken historic steps to improve the lives of rural Americans and build thriving economies in rural communities, a fact that does not go unnoticed in our state with over 26,207,000 acres of farmland.

I am proud to submit to the Congressional Record this column by American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman, which highlights the story of the USDA and the important role science and technology played in the American farming industry.

[From the AgAgenda, May 2012.]

USDA: Celebrating 150 Years of Innovation

(By Bob Stallman)

President Abraham Lincoln is known for many achievements

during his lifetime, but a little known triumph of his--that

affects farmers and ranchers greatly--was the establishment

of the United States Department of Agriculture 150 years ago.

On May 15, 1862, President Lincoln signed into law a bill

establishing a new Department of Agriculture, which was

specifically directed to acquire information through

``practical and scientific experiments'' and to collect and

propagate ``new and valuable seeds and plants'' and

distribute these to the nation's agriculturists. It is clear,

Lincoln was a man beyond his time.

A Man with a Vision

Lincoln understood the importance of agriculture to

America, and, as importantly, he realized science and

technology played a major role in the farming industry.

Without a doubt, I believe Lincoln today would embrace the

many technological advancements farmers use on their farms,

including biotechnology.

Lincoln once wrote: ``Every blade of grass is a study, and

to produce two, where there was but one, is both a profit and

a pleasure. And not grass alone, but soils, seeds and

seasons--hedges, ditches and fences, draining, droughts and

irrigation--plowing, hoeing and harrowing--reaping, mowing

and threshing--saving crops, pests of crops, diseases of

crops and what will prevent or cure them . . . the thousand

things of which these are specimens--each a world of study

within itself.''

The federal government was, from the beginning of its

involvement in agriculture, dedicated to scientific progress

in farming. This commitment continues today and is shared by

farmers and ranchers across the country, regardless of the

methods of food and fiber production they use--organic,

conventional or biotechnology. They all need science.

Full Speed Ahead

The importance of science and innovation--biotechnology in

particular--to agriculture will be significant as we face

several challenges in the years ahead. The world's population

just passed the 7 billion mark. According to the World Food

Program, the best estimate is that 1 billion people (one in

seven) are hungry and food insecure. By 2050 the world's

population will rise to 9 billion people. This means we must

double world food production by 2050 in order to meet this

challenge.

Further, we must accomplish this hefty goal while realizing

that our Earth is fragile. To take care of our environment,

we must embrace agriculture research, science, innovation and

biotechnology.

When it comes to medical care, communication and

transportation we accept the importance of innovation. We

need to do the same when it comes to the production of food.

Earlier this year, the United Nations issued a special

report recognizing that ``new `green' biotechnologies can . .

. improve resistance to pests, restore soil fertility and

contribute to the diversification of the rural economy.''

Sound familiar? Seems a lot like what Lincoln described as a

goal 150 years ago.

Scientists have developed new seeds that can improve yields

while resisting disease and requiring less water. That is

critical as 70 percent of all fresh water is used by

agriculture. American consumers and consumers all over the

world can feel safe with this technology and confident it

will improve our environment.

While meeting these quantitative challenges and meeting our

environmental goals, we will strive to focus even greater

attention on the qualitative side, to also meet the needs of

consumers who express a preference for foods grown ``their

way.'' Science is the answer for all these missions, and

today's USDA is helping to blaze that trail.

So, Happy Birthday USDA and best wishes as we continue down

the road for another 150 years. America's farmers, ranchers

and research scientists can lead the way to a new 21st

century Green Revolution if we follow the vision of Abraham

Lincoln. As Honest Abe said, ``Leave nothing for tomorrow

which can be done today.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to discuss this important amendment.

Congress has been neglecting our Nation's dredging needs for far too long. Ninety-five percent of the Nation's commerce goes through our Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the harbor maintenance fund, as was said, raises about $1.3 billion a year, Congress has only been appropriating about $800 million of that annually. This isn't right. I'm a firm believer that trust funds should be used for the intended purpose--to dredge the harbors.

In response, Congressman Boustany introduced H.R. 104, the Realize America's Maritime Promise, RAMP Act. This legislation, of which I was proud to be the 100th cosponsor, simply ties the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenue to expenditures.

While this amendment is slightly modified from H.R. 104, it would require the total budget resources for expenditures for the trust fund for harbor maintenance programs to equal the level of receipts plus interest credited to the trust fund for that fiscal year.

At a time where the President proposes to double our exports and we look to grow our Nation's economy, we cannot sit back and continue to watch our Nation's waterborne infrastructure system deteriorate.

I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the President has said it would be inexcusable not to extend the payroll tax cut for a year. However, the Senate's plan merely extends the plan for just 60 days, instead of a full year extension, creating uncertainty for our job creators at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. It also creates more uncertainty about implementing the plans, as we just learned today from the National Payroll Reporting Consortium.

American families deserve better than tax policy in 2-month increments. Last week, the House passed bipartisan legislation that extends the payroll tax cut for a full year, which would save American households an average of $1,000 a year. It also extends unemployment benefits and ensures senior citizens have access to their doctor by preventing a cut in Medicare reimbursement rates.

The worst part of the Senate plan is it puts new permanent fees on home mortgages to pay for 60 days of spending. This is an irresponsible and outrageous plan.

Our bill is offset by reasonable spending cuts, not new taxes on hardworking middle class home borrowers. A full-year plan with no new taxes is better than a 2-month spending spree which is nothing more than a political sideshow.

I guess the Senators were anxious to leave town and not finish their work. So I think we ought to call the Senate plan ``I'll be home for Christmas.''