Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 668, commemorating the Little Rock Nine, the African American students who enrolled in Little Rock Central High School in 1957 and were initially prevented from entering that segregated school. I want to commend Chairman Conyers for

bringing this legislation forward and our ranking member, Congressman Smith, for his support of it as well.

President Dwight Eisenhower, following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, sent Federal troops to enforce integration and protect the Little Rock Nine. On September 24, 1957, the President ordered the Army to Little Rock, and the nine students entered the school the next day. Thereafter, each of the students was given an individual escort inside Central High School to prevent them from harassment by other students.

It was surely a sad day when the Federal Government had to use the most powerful military in the world to integrate one high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. But it was also a proud day as well, as it demonstrated how our Constitution and each branch of government had, since the Civil War, finally had been honed and fitted to fulfill the promise of racial equality in America.

Chairman Conyers has already listed the Little Rock Nine, but the efforts of which they themselves and their families must be most proud are deserving of mentioning them again: Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed, and Melba Pattillo Beals. With each step they took through the schoolhouse doors, they paved a path forward for countless other African Americans. And when the school bell rang that day, it marked not only the start of the school day; it rang for liberty and equality as well.

The Little Rock Nine were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal on November 9, 1999. This resolution renews our commemoration of their courageous actions of the 50th anniversary of their historic first steps into history. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. If the gentleman is prepared to close, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, and commend my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his leadership on this issue.

This legislation extends the existing authorization for grants to State and local governments and Indian tribes to protect and help drug- endangered children. It is a sad consequence of our Nation's drug problem that drug traffickers have such a devastating impact on innocent children who live and play

in areas used to facilitate the production and distribution of illegal drugs.

We owe it to our Nation's children to do all that we can to protect them and provide them the services needed to allow them to grow and develop in a healthy and loving home.

It is often said that you can judge the health of a society by the way in which it treats the innocent and vulnerable, our children. Too often we hear from law enforcement about children being used or abused by drug traffickers. The consequences to our children are devastating. We must do whatever we can to protect our children from the evils of drug dealing and provide them with a safe environment in which to live.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it was 60 years ago on this date-- September 16, 1947--that the Freedom Train appeared to start a special journey across the United States. Contained in the railcars of the ``Spirit of 1776'' were some of the documents that form America's foundation.

During a 16-month route that carried the Freedom Train to our contiguous 48 states at that time, millions of Americans saw the rolling museum visit communities large and small. It was a time when our Nation was reminding itself of the struggles that led to its formation as well as the struggles that had come in the decades just before in the form of the Great Depression and then World War II. It was also a time during which railroads were able to showcase their still widely popular form of transit by leading a mission grounded in American pride.

The Freedom Train put more than 37,000 miles behind it during its nationwide tour. So many Americans were able to lay their eyes on original documents like the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence and understand just how valuable those pieces of paper were to our country's place in history.

I extend special thanks today to my constituents, John and Mary Jayne Rowe of Covington, Virginia, for their tireless work to catalog the history of the Freedom Train for generations to come. I also ask that we pay honor to the few Marine guards who will meet a reunion in a few weeks to further remember their role in protecting the Freedom Train on its special trip across our great country.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee and for years of leadership on this legislation, along with Howard Berman, the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and their staffs for this legislation.

Madam Chairman, article I, section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our Nation's patent laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors, for limited periods of time, exclusive rights to their inventions. The Framers had the incredible foresight to realize that this type of incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world's leader in innovation and creativity.

These incentives are just as important today as they were at the founding of our country. It is only right that as more and more inventions with increasing complexity emerge, we should examine our Nation's patent laws to

ensure that they still work efficiently and that they still encourage, and not discourage, innovation, so America will remain the world's leader in innovation.

The solution involves both ensuring that quality patents are issued in the first place and ensuring that we take a good hard look at patent litigation and enforcement laws to make sure that they do not contain loopholes for opportunists with invalid claims to exploit. H.R. 1908 addresses both of these concerns.

First, the bill helps ensure that quality patents are being issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTO, like any other large government agency, makes mistakes. H.R. 1908 creates a post-grant opposition procedure to allow the private sector to challenge a patent just after it is approved to provide an additional check on the issuance of bogus patents. Better quality patents mean more certainty and less litigation for patent holders and businesses.

In addition, H.R. 1908 contains important litigation reforms to rein in abusive lawsuits and forum shopping so that aggressive trial lawyers do not make patent litigation their next gold mine like they did for asbestos lawsuits, class action lawsuits and the like. Specifically, the bill tightens the venue provisions in the current patent law to prevent forum shopping.

H.R. 1908 also prohibits excessive damage awards. Believe it or not, there is no current requirement that damage awards in patent cases be limited to the value the patent added to the overall product. The courts have created a virtual free-for-all environment in this area. H.R. 1908 contains provisions to help ensure that damages are proportional to the value the invention added to the product, which will inject certainty into this area and allow businesses to devote their resources to R&D and innovating.

The bill also creates clearer standards for ``willful infringement'' by requiring greater specificity in notice letters alleging infringement of patent claims and requiring courts to include in the record more information about how they calculate damage awards.

Furthermore, the bill contains an important amendment that Congressman Boucher and I added during the Judiciary Committee markup to prevent individuals and companies from filing patents to protect tax strategies. Since 1998, when the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that business methods were patentable, 51 tax strategy patents have been granted covering such topics as estate and gift tax strategies, pension plans, charitable giving and the like. Over 80 additional tax strategy patents are pending before the USPTO.

When one individual or business is given the exclusive right to a particular method of complying with the Tax Code, it increases the cost and complexity for every other citizen or tax preparer to comply with the Tax Code. No one should have to pay royalties to file their taxes. H.R. 1908 renders these tax strategy patents unpatentable so that citizens can be free to comply with the Tax Code in the most efficient manner without asking permission or paying a royalty.

Our patent laws were written over 50 years ago and did not contemplate our modern economy where many products involve hundreds and even thousands of patented inventions. H.R. 1908 provides a much-needed update to these laws, and I urge my colleagues to support this litigation.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation, which will do nothing to make us energy independent. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ensures that we cannot produce sufficient domestic energy.

I believe we should find solutions to address our energy needs. Unfortunately, this legislation will result in less domestic energy production. This bill increases America's dependence on foreign oil, a dangerous policy for our national and economic security. This is a tax and spend and mandate policy by the Democrats, imposing $15 billion in tax increases and myriad new government mandates.

They will say these taxes and mandates won't affect average Americans, only oil companies in other businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher. An increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American energy consumer.

This legislation does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is nothing in this bill that addresses clean coal-to-liquid technologies or nuclear energy. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of clean coal technologies is completely ignored.

Furthermore, this legislation doesn't encourage the construction of nuclear energy generation facilities. As the Congress works to promote green energy, we should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide energy without CO2 emissions.

In one of the few programs that could lead to increased energy production, I am baffled that it contains Davis-Bacon labor provisions. Renewable energy plans financed through loan guarantees would be located in rural America, but artificially inflated construction costs caused by Davis-Bacon will negate the program in most rural areas.

This legislation does not address the energy concerns of our country. It makes the situation worse. If we want to make America energy independent, this Congress must pass a bill that contains energy. This bill does not.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to find real solutions to the energy needs facing our country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. Unfortunately, this legislation contains no energy in it. In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an Energy Bill that actually encouraged energy--domestic energy production--and lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however, seeks to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy independence, and leaves us at the mercy of foreign energy sources.

Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to decrease its dependence on foreign energy. In fact, many campaigned on promises to decrease our dependence. Sadly, this legislation falls drastically short on those promises. In fact it actually increases America's dependence on foreign oil. This is a dangerous policy for our national and economic security.

Many Americans don't know that the U.S. is the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25 years we have pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves remain. The fact is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the Rockies, and offshore--but political roadblocks keep it in the ground instead of in use in the economy. Sadly, this legislation restricts our access to our own energy sources even further.

This energy policy set in place by the Democrat majority lives the Democrat motto through and through--Tax and Spend. This policy imposes $15 billion in tax increases. The other side will tell you that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking Americans, only the big evil oil companies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher.

Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers.

While this legislation increases taxes on traditional oil and gas, it does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is not one thing in this bill that addressees clean Coal-to-Liquid technologies or nuclear energy. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies is completely ignored by this bill. Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the construction of new nuclear facilities.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide energy free of CO2 emissions. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 700 pages this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2 free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

One of the provisions I am most alarmed about in this bill allows for individuals to sue the Federal Government for $1.5 million for damages caused by global warming. I don't know what this has to do with energy production, but I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. This language gambles with the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people that could get lost in frivolous litigation.

I'm also concerned with the potential sweeping implications of the bill's National Policy on Wildlife and Global Warming. It is nearly impossible to accurately determine the effects that warming temperatures might have on wildlife, let alone take measures to mitigate these effects. The consequences of this section could be as far reaching as the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act and could have severe implications for Federal land management. This does not belong in a so-called energy bill.

I will concede that there are a few, very few, decent provisions in this bill. I am pleased that the Agriculture Energy programs build on the 2002 Farm Bill with more focus on cellulosic materials, including forest biomass and switchgrass. This will help farmers and forest owners by creating new markets and income opportunities to keep them on the land. At the same time, greater focus on cellulosic feedstocks can reduce our reliance on corn for renewable fuels.

With Americans paying close to $3 at the pump, we must diversify our energy supplies with alternative fuels, including renewable energy from our farms and forests. Renewable energy is a home-grown solution for reducing our reliance on foreign-oil, boosting jobs and economies in rural America, and improving our environment.

However, I am baffled that one of the few programs in this bill that would lead to increased energy production would contain Davis-Bacon provisions. Renewable energy plants financed through the loan guarantee program would be located in Rural America. Rural America simply cannot afford to pay the artificially inflated wages caused by Davis-Bacon as urban America can. By including this unfair labor provision we are putting union interests ahead of efforts to become more energy independent.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the lack of real incentives for energy production in the U.S., this bill is also bad for our Nation's public forests. The bill guts a program that provides incentives for renewable energy production from small-diameter materials removed from public forests to reduce wildfire and insect risk and improve the health of the forests. With over 5 million acres destroyed by fires and hundreds of millions of dollars spent fighting them so far this year, we cannot afford to take away forest management tools from the Nation's public land managers.

Unfortunately, the bill replaces this program with a Biomass Pilot Program, which would do everything but encourage use of low value forest material for energy. On top of this, the bill attaches the problematic Davis-Bacon provisions to this pilot program.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country; it only makes the situation worse. This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to

make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill; let's start over, and work to find real solutions to the energy needs facing our country.

Madam Speaker, as Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, and throughout his career, Dr. W. Ron DeHaven has worked tirelessly to protect animal and plant health in the United States and advance the veterinary medical profession.

His accomplishments are numerous. In 2002-2003, Dr. DeHaven led a campaign to successfully contain and eradicate an outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease in the southwest in one-third the time and half the cost of the response to the prior outbreak in 1971.

He was the public face of the Nation's response to BSE--first with the Canadian detection in May 2003, and then the U.S. discovery of the disease later that year. Dr. DeHaven led the U.S. efforts to address domestic and international concerns as he headed the epidemiological investigation, and he appeared on television almost daily. His steady leadership and forthright communication during the crisis ensured that the public was constantly kept informed, and, as a result, consumer confidence in U.S. beef did not waiver.

Dr. DeHaven was at the helm in 2004 when USDA successfully controlled an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Texas. This set the stage for his work with international animal health officials to address the currently circulating strain of Asian H5Nl highly pathogenic avian influenza. He has spread the important message that we need to respond to this potential human health threat while the virus remains primarily a disease of poultry. Dr. DeHaven has also been a strong advocate for increasing veterinary infrastructure in developing nations to prevent the emergence of zoonotics--diseases that can pass from animals to humans--that increasingly jeopardize public health.

Dr. DeHaven has forged improved relationships between veterinary professionals, the agricultural community, and wildlife biologists to address diseases that affect both wildlife and livestock. One tangible product of this cooperation is the ongoing surveillance of wild birds for H5Nl highly pathogenic avian influenza that is being conducted by a combination of wildlife and veterinary professionals.

In other important areas, under Dr. DeHaven's leadership as Administrator over the past 3 years, APHIS has strengthened its regulation of agricultural products derived from biotechnology to ensure that they are safe for release into the environment. The strong, science-based regulatory system forged under Dr. DeHaven's management is helping to ensure that U.S. producers and trading partners are confident in the safety of these products.

Dr. DeHaven is also reknowned for his commitment to animal welfare. He served as Deputy Administrator of APHIS's Animal Care program for 5 years, ensuring that millions of animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act are provided adequate care under the law. Dr. DeHaven also implemented an innovative risk-

based inspection system for the Animal Care program, targeting investigative and enforcement resources on bad actors.

Throughout his career, Dr. DeHaven has exhibited creativity and commitment to ensuring animal welfare and promoting U.S. agriculture. This Congress and this Nation is grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass several pending trade agreements. I believe in the benefits of free and fair trade. I support efforts to open foreign markets to American goods and services whenever possible because such efforts lead to increased economic growth for the Nation as a whole.

With approximately one in every four jobs in my congressional district being tied to trade, the expansion of trade means a healthy future for a number of local businesses, and in turn, new jobs for my district and the Nation.

It is disappointing that the Democratic majority has not embraced these trade agreements, as they would mean new jobs for citizens across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to the benefits of free and fair trade, and I urge this House to take action on these agreements.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to the war- torn nation of Sudan and see first-hand one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent times. As a nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, the United States has a responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad.

Last week I traveled with the same bipartisan delegation to the United Nations (U.N.) to press U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for immediate U.N. action in Darfur. It is apparent that the U.N. is not moving fast enough in ending this genocide. The entire world is watching the U.N. actions in Darfur. In the past, the U.N. has not adequately handled genocide in other countries, most recently in Rwanda, but this is an opportunity for the U.N. to aid millions of people and bring about a real and lasting change.

Many people share frustration with me that the U.N. is not more effectively working to end the genocide in Darfur. These people, who, like me, are deeply concerned and troubled by the deplorable situation in Darfur, want to know what we can do to make a change in Darfur.

This legislation gives us the tools to apply economic leverage against Sudan to encourage them to end the crisis in Darfur. H.R. 180, The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act establishes a list of companies whose business in Sudan is deemed to directly or indirectly support the genocide. Furthermore this legislation bans federal contracts with such companies. This ensures that no federal dollars-- hard earned tax dollars of American families--go to support one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history.

Private citizens can also look at the list of companies whose business supports the genocide, and use this list to make investment decisions in their private lives. These people can then be assured that none of their money, whether through tax dollars or personal investments, is being used to support the genocide in Darfur.

Many States, including Virginia, have also looked at legislation to divest from these companies. H.R. 180 allows States and localities to divest from these companies without fear of lawsuits charging that States are regulating foreign policy. This will protect several States that have already taken the lead in divesting in such companies, and States like mine that are still considering this option on a State level will know they can do so without fear of legal charges.

This legislation is fairly balanced and does not require individuals or States to take action, but protects them if they so choose. Furthermore this legislation would sunset these sanctions when the genocide ends. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

While I have never seen anything like what I saw in Darfur, the situation is not completely hopeless. The humanitarian assistance the United States is providing is helping millions of people in desperate circumstances. But we must continue to do more, and we must urge the international community to join with us to bring an end to the genocide. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to bring an end to this international crisis.

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

The Puget Sound region is home to diverse natural resource dependent industries, including everything from fishing, tourism and recreation to agriculture and forest products. As an estuary, the Sound also houses diverse fish and wildlife species. The Sound itself consists of over 2500 miles of shoreline and is fed by over 10,000 streams and rivers that run throughout northwest Washington.

As the second largest container shipping port in the U.S., the Sound is extremely important to the State and Nation as a whole.

The watershed that feeds the Sound includes several large population centers, but is also home to significant agriculture production, including many specialty crops including raspberries, flower bulbs and vegetable seeds. Agriculture contributes $5.6 billion to Washington State's economy, establishing its rank in agriculture production as 12th in the Nation.

Unfortunately, the Puget Sound region is undergoing tremendous change as more people move into the region and water quality and soil concerns increase. The bill before us today helps address these environmental concerns by encouraging agricultural producers in the region to adopt voluntary conservation practices.

The bill also requires a comprehensive plan to encourage cooperation among the multiple agencies and landowners in the region. Many farms in the Puget Sound are adjacent to endangered salmon-bearing streams and bear the brunt of protection for these and other endangered species.

These regulatory requirements place significant burden on producers struggling to stay on the land. We must continue to encourage cooperation and proactive partnerships with producers in this region, as well as the other heavily agricultural regions in the country, helping to keep producers on the land and keep the Nation's agricultural economy healthy and diverse.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule for the consideration of the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act.

This bill is a controversial one because of the chilling effect it will have on the private property rights of citizens located in the same area affected by the infamous Kelo decision. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court gave State and local governments broad authority to seize private property and give it to another private entity under the guise of economic development.

When citizens believe that their land can be snatched up by the government for nearly any reason, then the principle of private property rights becomes meaningless.

The bill before us today will severely restrict the property rights of individuals who happen to live near the Eightmile River by tightening zoning restrictions on private land and prohibiting any physical alteration to private property.

Furthermore, and perhaps most troubling, the bill leaves the door wide open to actual condemnation proceedings against private land.

The majority already tried once to ram this controversial bill through the House without an opportunity for amendments. That attempt, fortunately, failed to garner the two-thirds vote necessary to pass on the suspension calendar. Now the majority is back at it again.

It's bad enough that the majority is bringing this bill back to the floor with no improvements to protect private property rights. However, it is worse that the majority has made the decision to suppress debate on this controversial bill and deny Members the opportunity to correct the land-grabbing provisions with constructive amendments.

Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity and is a basic principle embedded in our Constitution. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, church or business.

I introduced legislation earlier this year, the STOPP Act, along with Representative Herseth Sandlin to rein in State and local governments' abuses of their eminent domain powers.

Unfortunately, H.R. 986 goes in the opposite direction and sets a precedent for more land-grabbing by government entities. I urge the Members of this body to oppose both this rule, which bans debate on protecting private property rights, as well as the misguided underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 3006 is a simple amendment to the act granting statehood to Idaho. The legislation will allow Idaho additional flexibility to invest and manage earnings from the land grant provided under the first Morrill Act.

The purpose of the Morrill Act of 1862 was to provide an amount of public land to be apportioned to each State, the proceeds of which were to be used to establish a college of agriculture. The Morrill Act is the foundation of our land grant college system and one we can continue to build upon with each farm bill.

The purpose of H.R. 3006 is to provide additional flexibility to Idaho in how it manages funds derived from the original land grant. Specifically, this legislation would waive statutory limitations related to facility procurement and maintenance. This, in turn, will allow Idaho to construct a research facility addressing environmental concerns facing the dairy industry.

As stated previously, this is simple legislation for which I know of no opposition.

I am told that any concerns the U.S. Department of Agriculture may have have been subsequently addressed. I, therefore, urge all Members to support this legislation

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of the bill to amend S. 1716, which previously passed the other body and is now before the House.

In May, Congress passed and the President signed U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. This law included disaster assistance for crop and livestock producers for losses sustained between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007.

Producers were able to receive payments for losses sustained in only one of these years and were required to be in a county that was declared a disaster county in that same calendar year. This law also contained provisions found in section 9012 requiring that forage producers must have participated in a crop insurance pilot program or the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance program during the crop year for which compensation is received.

As a result of section 9012, very few livestock producers are eligible for the disaster relief passed by Congress because crop insurance is more widely used in crop production than in livestock production. The amendment before the House will strike section 9012 to broaden the eligibility requirements to allow more livestock producers that suffered loss to participate than were allowed under the previously passed disaster package. The amendment before the House will not change direct spending because this amendment reconfirms the assumptions made when the Congressional Budget Office scored the original bill.

I believe section 9012 establishes an appropriate incentive for producers to manage their risk using the available tools. However, it is not reasonable to put this policy in place without warning. To tell producers in 2007 that they should have bought crop insurance in 2005 to get assistance for losses incurred in 2005 is not fair. Livestock producers should know, however, that in the future, crop insurance or participation in similar risk-management programs will likely be required to qualify for future disaster assistance.

I commend the gentlewoman from South Dakota and others who have

worked for this legislation. I support the bill to amend S. 1716 and urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment streamlines and adopts one set of terms and conditions for easements for the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. This greatly simplifies the process for the Department to purchase easements, while leaving functions of the programs intact. It allows for one set of rules on titleholders, establishment of easements, type of deeds, acceptance of contributions, title transfer and reversionary interest.

This amendment not only helps the Department to reduce inefficiencies which result in administrative costs, but will help producers by simplifying the process of obtaining easements for these programs.

This amendment does not consolidate any program. This simply sets up one set of rules and regulations for easements. Each program has its own application process, sign-up period, and administrative requirements. Countless hours are wasted on administrative work because each easement has its own set of rules.

This amendment makes an effort at streamlining these complex rules and regulations into one set of rules with flexibility that is simple and makes common sense.

Each of these individual programs retains their own mission. These easement programs are implemented through landowners who voluntarily agree to a deed restriction and some landscape and resource restoration. Making the sign-up process for producers easier will allow NRCS to focus on their true mission, which should be to provide technical assistance to producers wanting to implement voluntary conservation methods.

We have taken popular components of the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, including the ability of third-party entities to hold easements, and implemented them in a manner that all producers interested in easements will be able to enjoy.

This amendment keeps the funding and missions of each easement program intact. The amendment even keeps the appraisal method of each program intact.

This is a commonsense amendment, a good government amendment, and a producer-friendly amendment. And I ask for your support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman for his comments. He and I have had discussions about this, and I think we are in agreement that there needs to be significant reform of these programs.

As I've shared with the gentleman and others, there are farmers in my district and elsewhere around the country who are very frustrated with signing up for these programs. And, quite frankly, it is counterproductive to have programs that are so complex, that require so much paperwork, that require you to apply in several different places. One farmer, a woman in my district, has done a fantastic job of attempting to utilize these programs, but the frustration, the cost, the amount of time involved discouraged her, as it has discouraged others from even initiating the process to participate. And therefore, I think it's in the interest of the stakeholders, the groups who want to see more of these easements taken up, to make it an easier process. And that includes not only streamlining the definition of easements in this amendment, but looking

at whether some of these programs can be made to work together better.

I appreciate the gentleman's seriousness about undertaking this.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Will the gentleman from California yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi for his willingness to hold hearings on this issue.

I was chairman of the committee at the time that the Homeland Security Department and Committee were created and served on that committee for 2 years, and the problems were already becoming apparent at the outset that the nature of most of the operations of homeland security very much differ from this effort to deal with animal and plant pests that are entering this country. And we really do need to make sure that this function of the Department is operating in the fashion that it was operating when it was under the control of the Department of Agriculture, that we're not losing people with the kind of expertise that's necessary to be able to detect and keep these pests out of the country. And I hope that this dialogue will lead to an effort to enhance that effort.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join him in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Illinois' concerns, but with regard to the conservation programs, we have a finite amount of money. The commodity programs work under a baseline that assumes market conditions.

The money rises and falls, and every farmer who meets those conditions can qualify for them. But with the conservation programs, there is a finite amount of money. Without the payment limitations, many farmers will not receive any help whatsoever in complying with different environmental regulations unless we have these payment limitations, which allows the payment to be spread across a wider area. This is a new reform-minded payment limitation. While some may think it's too stringent, payment limitations need to be applied uniformly across both title I and title II.

Easement programs such as the wetlands reserve are exempted from this so we can protect some of the most environmentally sensitive land through easements. But the committee must be consistent in our views of all payments to producers, not just commodity payments.

I join the gentleman in reluctantly opposing the gentleman from Illinois' amendment.

Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Isn't the gentleman out of order in offering this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Speaker for coming down to the floor and discussing the bipartisan nature of the farm bill that was produced by the House Committee on Agriculture. It was, indeed, a bipartisan product. There are things in the bill that I don't like, things in the bill that I do like, things in the bill the chairman does not like, things in the bill that he does like. But it was a bipartisan product. But it was written under very difficult circumstances, which we identified at the outset, because of the fact that there is a $60 billion cut in the baseline for the commodity program, a 58 percent cut. That meant we needed to have money to accomplish the goals that the Speaker outlined for reform, some of which I share with the Speaker for increased payments for conservation, for nutrition, for fruits and vegetables, for renewable energy. So we went to the Budget Committee in a bipartisan fashion and pointed out that you couldn't have a $60 billion cut, achieve these new reforms, which all entail new spending, without having the ability to also have some additional resources. Well, the Budget Committee ignored that request and instead gave us a reserved fund. And their budget is papered over with reserve funds; no money in them, no way for the Agriculture Committee to find new funds without going outside of the committee.

We were assured inside the committee repeatedly that there would not be a tax increase. But nonetheless, in the closing hours of this debate, a tax increase, indeed, was what was put forth outside of this committee, without hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, without a markup in the Ways and Means Committee, without any input from this side of the aisle. And that is what caused the loss of the bipartisanship coming to the floor, because this is precedent setting. This is the first of many of these reserve funds that we're going to have to deal with, and it is readily apparent what the purpose is: to raise taxes in order to accomplish something that should have been paid for in a budget that had funds available, 9 percent increase in appropriations. It should have been made available to us so we could write a bipartisan farm bill all the way through this House going to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the distinguished majority leader that I join him in the support of this bill for the efforts to help preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay, but also to correct the assertion that I object to the pay-fors. I objected all along to a tax increase all through the process. And I went with the chairman to the Budget Committee at the outset and asked for a fair portion of the current Federal budget for agriculture, and that is what we expected to come forward from the budget. We didn't receive it. So that's what we expected the leadership to provide later on. It was not provided. Instead, we're asked to pay a tax increase on American businesses, and that is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the House Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Chairman, the committee bill makes significant reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. The bill reduced the statutory loss ratio to an actuarially sound 1.0. By doing this, we were able to include a provision by Mr. Neugebauer that makes additional crop insurance available, which has to be paid for, which will lessen need for disaster assistance.

Mr. Neugebauer's provision is similar in many respects to the administration's crop insurance plan. The committee bill increases premiums for the catastrophic level of coverage.

We authorize the USDA to renegotiate the standard reinsurance agreement every 5 years. The committee bill specifically authorizes data mining to ensure compliance with rules of the program. The committee bill also reduces the reimbursement rate by 2 percentage points. These are significant changes that make the program more actuarially sound and make the program more responsible with taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, the committee-passed bill authorized an additional 1 million acres in the GRP land to protect sensitive grasslands in this country. While we all would like more money for many programs, this is a carefully balanced approach. I think we have done a good job of balancing the needs of both commodity producers and those that would like to preserve native grasslands.

I strongly oppose this amendment.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, let me just say that these changes are real, they are legitimate, they will be put into effect. The chairman has committed to holding additional hearings and investigation into the matter. We will do that.

But to pull the safety net out from under American farmers and ranchers by doing something in a precipitous fashion is not a good idea.

Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the members of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, and the staff of the Agriculture Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to write a good farm bill.

This farm bill has a lot of things in it I don't like, a lot of things I do. I think the chairman would say the same thing about the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation because of what happened after this bill left the Agriculture Committee and came to this floor with a tax increase added in the middle of the night with no hearings in the Ways and Means Committee and no markup in the Ways and Means Committee.

This is the wrong way to maintain bipartisan comity in this House, and to force the American people and the Members of this House to choose between tax increases and the farm bill that America's farmers and ranchers need.

I yield to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery.

Reclaiming my time, this motion to recommit is very straightforward. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, sends it back to the Agriculture Committee. And we would be delighted to work with the leadership that did not work with us before to find a pay-for that works for this.

We went to the Budget Committee at the start of this process in a bipartisan fashion and pointed out that the reforms in this bill cost money, and asked for that money to be forthcoming. It was not.

Now, based upon previous experience, I would not be at all surprised to see a cameo appearance in a moment from the majority leader saying that, because this bill is sent back to committee to report back promptly, that we're killing the bill. We are doing no such time thing. We are doing what is necessary to make sure that this bill is treated in a bipartisan fashion and that the bill is paid for in a way that adjusts our budget fairly to make sure that agriculture and America's farmers and rangers got treated the way they should have been treated at the outset of this process when $60 billion was lost because of the baseline in agriculture.

And then we're asked to make reforms, many of which I support, but this, mark my words, is a tax increase that is not fair to the American people. It puts pressure on companies investing in this country. It will increase taxes on those workers. It will also call into question the credibility of the United States for future investment in this country if we violate treaties, 58 treaties that we have negotiated. And finally, it will cause retaliation against American investment overseas as well.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Send it back. Do the right thing. Do not put America's workers against America's farmers and ranchers. Support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, in my time remaining, I would point out that this is a tax increase because the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, when he came to the floor last night, said it was a tax increase. The tax experts I've spoken to say it's a tax increase. Not withstanding what anybody says, it's a tax increase. Don't support it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.