Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues on the House floor today to lend my strong support to this House Concurrent Resolution 299, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.

I am also honored to cochair this with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Ed Markey, and I look forward to passage of this resolution. He and I have worked on this together. We are very pleased that, finally, it's coming to the floor, and hopefully will pass today.

My colleagues, this is a disease that affects 30,000 Americans living in this country, more than half of which are children. One out of every 3,500 babies born in the U.S. today has cystic fibrosis, with 70 percent of the cases diagnosed by age 2 and 1,000 new cases diagnosed each year.

In my home State of Florida, there are roughly 1,100 patients who suffer each and every day from this debilitating disease. It's cruel. That is 1,100 too many. These CF patients have to endure hours of treatment each day just to stay relatively healthy and maintain normal lung functions. Treatments range from daily air clearance techniques to intensive nutrition and drug therapies, and even to lung transplants in the most severe cases.

People suffering from CF have two copies of a defective gene, which causes the body to produce abnormally thick sticky mucus which clogs the lungs

and can result in fatal lung infections. This kind of mucus can also obstruct the pancreas, making it difficult for people with CF to absorb nutrients, simple nutrients, in food. Unfortunately, more than 10 million Americans are unknowingly symptom-free carriers of the CF gene.

Now, the residents of Florida have recognized there is a real need for CF care and research. There are 15 specialized centers and clinics for cystic fibrosis care in my home State of Florida, including one at the University of Florida, which I represent here in Congress.

My colleagues, there is no cure for CF, even though it is one of the most common, life-threatening diseases in the United States. Now, 50 years ago, CF was considered a death sentence, as there were no drugs to combat and control the symptoms.

In 1955, a child born with CF was not expected to live long enough to attend elementary school. Today, the median age of survival for a CF patient is 37.

I am proud to say there are five drugs on the market, and there's over 30 new drugs that are in various stages of development. These drugs are helping children born with CF to live significantly longer and healthier lives. People with CF are living longer. Over 40 percent of the CF population is now age 18 or older.

But that is not enough, my colleagues. We need more research and more funding, and we can't stop until we find the cure. I believe in the ingenuity and strong ethic of the American people. I believe we have the brain power and the drive to cure this disease today.

I would like to recognize the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, which has led the development of these promising treatments through an innovative business approach to drug discovery and development. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into partnerships with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to find a cure, a simple cure for this disease.

As a result of their efforts, promising potential drug therapies to correct the cause of the disease are now entering clinical trials in CF patients, and new therapies that treat the symptoms of this disease are now helping patients every day as we speak.

In the past 5 years, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and its subsidiaries have invested over $650 million in drug research. I commend them for their commitment to innovation and for acting as a facilitator in the development of these important new drugs.

With the support of the foundation, programs like the one at the University of Florida CF and Pediatric Pulmonary Disease Center are simply improving the health outcome of patients who have cystic fibrosis. In the past 5 years in the State of Florida, CF research and care supported by the CF Foundation has totaled $3\1/2\ million.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the achievements of organizations like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and to bring awareness to and honor to the thousands of Americans suffering from CF every day, by simply passing this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand before my colleagues today as we pass legislation that will designate the Department of Veterans Affairs spinal cord injury center in Tampa, Florida, as the ``Michael Bilirakis Department of Veterans Affairs Spinal Cord Injury Center.''

Michael Bilirakis served the Ninth Congressional District of Florida from 1983-2006. Michael was a standout member of the United States House of Representatives, and his presence is surely missed on Capitol Hill. A native of my home State of Florida, Michael worked steadfastly for his constituents for 23 years, and his lifetime of civic-minded public service has not gone unnoticed.

I had the pleasure of serving on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee with Michael, and his leadership as chairman of the VA Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was unparalleled. A veteran of the United States Air Force, Michael spent his career working hard to serve the best interests of our Nation's veterans. Michael's strong traditional values and service-oriented spirit were always visible in his everyday work on Capitol Hill.

It is truly appropriate and deserving then, for Congress to name the VA spinal cord injury center in Tampa, Florida after Michael Bilirakis, and I thank my colleague and fellow Florida delegation member Jeff Miller for sponsoring this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the University of Florida's 2008 Women's softball team for their historic 70-5 winning season. This marks the first time in NCAA history that a team has won 70 games in a single season. The UF Women's softball team has also set many outstanding records this season in hitting, pitching, and fielding, and for the first time in school history, the softball team made it to the semifinals of the Women's College World Series.

In addition to their historic season, the Gators produced five All- American honors

players, and many personal records were set for the number of runs scored, bases stolen, and game shutouts. The UF Women's softball team played with class and won with grace, and their teamwork, tenacity, and gamesmanship deserve to be recognized. This certainly is a team to be remembered, and this is just another reason why it is great to be a Florida Gator.

Madam Speaker, according to the Energy Information Agency, the United States electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by the year 2030, and other countries are projecting similar increases. The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already placing great pressure on global energy supplies.

Nuclear energy can help meet this growing demand by providing a clean, abundant source of electricity. Other countries seem to understand the potential benefits of nuclear power and have either commenced constructing, or have developed projections for new nuclear power plants. Countries like China, India, and Russia are already building new nuclear power plants. Even smaller countries like Vietnam and countries in the Middle East have begun exploring nuclear power as they too are facing demand shortages and they are feeling the pressures from the industrialized world to reduce CO2 emissions.

The time has come for all of us to remove regulatory impediments and allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to meet its growing energy demands.

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

My colleagues, I rise in support of the DTV Transition Assistance Act, the Senate bill, S. 2607, and urge its immediate passage.

By setting February 17, 2009 as the date for full-power broadcasters to transmit exclusively in digital format, the DTV legislation gave industry the needed incentives to prepare for this transition.

The result, 91 percent of broadcasters are transmitting in digital; 68 percent are already on their post-transition channel and 68 percent are already broadcasting at full strength.

As of April 30, 2008, 78 percent of households had all their televisions prepared for the transition, and 91 percent of households had one or more televisions that were prepared for this transition. This means that with more than 9 months still to go, about 10 percent of households were relying exclusively on analog over-the-air broadcasts and needed to take action to receive programming after the transition.

Because low-power translator stations are not required to transition to digital television, our original DTV legislation created a $10 million grant program at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to help translators convert digital broadcast signals back to analog.

As it turns out, not many requests for money from the conversion fund have really been made. Moreover, even if every translator participated in the program, it looks like we will still have money left over. Therefore, this bill allows some of the $10 million to be used for DTV consumer education, but only if the NTIA determines that not all the money will be needed for the converter box program.

The original DTV legislation also created a second grant program making $65 million available to help low-power stations voluntarily upgrade to digital broadcasting. At the time, it was believed that low- power stations would not upgrade until after full-power stations transitioned in 2009. Consequently, money from the $65 million upgrade fund was not to become available until 2010. It now appears low-power stations intend to upgrade sooner, so this bill makes the upgrade funds available in 2009 instead of 2010.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill that will give the NTIA additional flexibility to help ensure that the DTV transition goes as smoothly as possible. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to also support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my good colleague from Virginia talk about some suggestions, and his suggestion is that we adopt something that Britain has adopted. But I'm not sure it's necessary because we're having a demonstration project of the digital transition in North Carolina. And I think with that sort of demonstration, I think after that, if we see problems, then probably that's the best time to adjust.

I would be glad to yield.

I would note that certainly his points are well taken, but I think after the Wilmington, North Carolina, demonstration, if it does not work, there is perhaps a possibility of another demonstration. But certainly most of the kinks should be worked out after that first demonstration, and I look forward to taking a very careful look at it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I will reserve the balance of my time just until I understand whether my colleague has additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker I would support the bill and urge its passage.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong support of H. Res. 1260, supporting the goals and ideals of National Internet Safety Month. This legislation is very important, and of course, it's quite timely. I urge my colleagues obviously to support it.

The Internet, as we all know, has revolutionized communications, business, and entertainment. Much of its success is due to the largely unregulated status that we have given it. Industry has done a tremendous job of deploying it, including to children, who increasingly rely on it to learn and to create things.

In the United States, more than 35 million children in kindergarten through grade 12 have Internet access, and 93 percent of children between 12 and 17 years old use the Internet. But just like any other technology, it is sometimes used by bad people to do bad things.

Recent studies show that sexual predators, cyber bullies, cyber stalkers, and identity thieves represent very real online dangers for children of all ages. According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, 22 percent of people targeted by online predators were children with ages between 10 and 13. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports 25 percent of children say they've received unwanted sexual material while simply surfing the Internet. The Identity Theft Resource Center reports that children are the newest target for identity theft, since they can be easily persuaded to divulge personal information, and the crime is unlikely to be discovered until the victim is much older. As these numbers demonstrate, Internet safety should be of paramount concern to all of us.

Furthermore, these statistics highlight why online safety education is so very important. By arming parents and children with the information, we can go a long way to avoiding some of the pitfalls out there on the Internet and obviously maximize its benefits.

That's why I support National Internet Safety Month and this resolution, and I urge its support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this very good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. faces a critical need to encourage domestic petroleum production. It seems as if the United States has unilaterally disarmed itself in the competition for energy supplies by imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions on domestic oil and energy production. Indeed, in the past three decades, we've thwarted construction of refineries and nuclear power plants that could have helped to ease the competition for energy supply and that could have secured greater energy independence for all of us.

Further, taxes on the major domestic oil producers lower incentives for new investments, and they add more costs to finished products at the pump. Furthermore, there is growing doubt that the recent rush to develop corn-based ethanol and other alternative and renewable energy sources will bring genuine relief or true energy security. By creating a bonanza for corn growers and agribusiness giants, we have succeeded in driving up food prices both in the United States and abroad.

American families deserve better from the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Good morning, Madam Speaker.

A question for all of us: Why would the most powerful economy in the world leave so much of its own energy sources untapped?

Alone among all the countries, the United States has placed a substantial amount of its oil and natural gas potential off limits. Other countries have the potential to drill just off their shores, but United States' firms face strict restrictions on drilling in most offshore areas even as American drivers face sharply higher prices at the gas pump.

Domestic oil and gas production has failed to keep pace with the growing demand both domestically and abroad, but it's not because we're not lacking for domestic energy. Since the 1990s, the Federal Government has placed severe restrictions on new energy development, particularly in some of our most promising areas.

As this graph shows, Congress has placed over 85 percent of our Outer Continental Shelf off limits. Back then, oil and natural gas were cheap, and the need for additional energy was not considered significant. Also, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill led to the heightened environmental concerns about offshore energy production.

Environmental concerns took precedence over future economic considerations. Soon, access to 85 percent of federally controlled offshore areas had been restricted, including the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and portions of the area off the shores of Alaska and off the eastern Gulf of Mexico. No one knows how much energy lies in those areas, but many agree there is enough to bring stability to energy markets and to make a real difference in oil and natural gas prices for many years to come.

According to a recent Interior Department study, restricted offshore areas are known to contain--and this is a fact--15 billion barrels of oil and 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but literally, when they go to estimate beyond the hard facts, the estimate goes up to 86 billion barrels of oil and even higher and to 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough oil to replace all of our imports for the next 27 years at current rates. In fact, it may be even higher given that most of the off-limit areas have not been thoroughly explored.

New technology and what we estimate based upon the 1980s is probably not correct. Our policies need to catch up with our times. Oil and natural gas prices have tripled since the 1990s. Demand continues to increase by a steady 1.5 percent per year. Imports have increased. Political stability in oil-producing nations has decreased. Domestic production has flattened, all while our ability to extract resources without environmental damage has increased dramatically.

With all of this energy out there, with demands at all-time highs and with prices remaining high, what has taken so long?

The biggest problem has been environmental concerns, being worried about a spill. What would it do to the tourist industry, for example, in the gulf coast areas? The National Academy of Sciences says, ``Improved production technology and safety training of personnel have dramatically reduced both blowouts and daily operational spills.''

The danger of such spills has been greatly reduced. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent--that is one thousandth of 1 percent--has been spilled. In fact, even during Katrina and Rita, during winds that reached 170 miles per hour and during lashing waves that took out a quarter of America's domestic energy production, no significant spills were reported. Furthermore, Cuba wants to let the Chinese drill in some of the very parts of the gulf that American producers are forbidden to touch, some as close as 45 miles off the Florida coast.

Do we truly believe the environmental safeguards of Chinese energy firms are better than ours?

It's time we stop assuming that all energy exploration is bad. Most takes place too far from the coast to be seen, and we haven't even had a spill from offshore drilling in over 40 years, neither has Canada, which permits drilling off its Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the Great Lakes where some rigs are closer to U.S. shores than American producers are permitted to drill.

Madam Speaker, America's energy problems are partially self-imposed,

and that needs to end. Congress overreacted in the 1990s, and it needs to undo that damage. Our need for affordable energy will not decrease, and the time has come to lift the restrictions on offshore energy production and to let U.S. producers do what they can do to meet our growing energy demands. It's time for this Congress to get serious about bridging the growing gap between supply and demand. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf to environmentally sound exploration could be just the way to do it.

A new Gallup Poll shows that 57 percent of Americans agree with House Republicans and favor more energy exploration in the United States. America needs fewer restrictions on domestic sources of oil. The U.S. remains the only oil-producing nation that has placed a substantial amount of its energy potential off limits. This includes just 100th of 1 percent of Alaska's 20-million Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This small portion of ANWR is believed to contain 10 billion barrels of oil, or more, an amount equivalent to 15 years of imports from Saudi Arabia or 30 years of imports from Hugo Chavez. The Congressional Research Service estimates that at $1.25 a barrel, ANWR would deliver $192 billion in corporate income tax and royalty revenue to the Federal Government.

Even more oil is located in other restricted areas throughout the United States, and still more, Mr. Speaker, in the 85 percent of America's Outer Continental Shelf, that is currently off-limits.

We need to favor more exploration.

Madam Speaker, according to the Energy Information Agency, the United States currently imports 60 percent of its oil, and that number is expected to rise to 75 percent in the coming decades. As a country, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign fuel sources and start implementing alternative energy sources that can be found here in the United States.

Imported fuels such as crude oil and natural gas are costing this country millions of dollars a year, accounting for about one-third of the U.S. trade deficit. At $45 a barrel, liquid coal fuel is a desirable alternative to the $120 or more barrel of oil. Not only does this innovative fuel cost less, but also coal is one of the most abundant resources in our country.

As Congress continues to explore the use of alternative energy sources, we need to look closely at the enormous benefits of coal-to- liquid technology.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first state that it was a pleasure, in my former capacity as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, to work with my good friend from Illinois, Chairman Rush, in crafting this important legislation. H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, will greatly enhance the ability of the CPSC to secure the proper funding and sufficient number of employees to ensure that the products we import from abroad and manufacture here at home will not harm those who purchase them.

Millions of Americans are concerned with the safety of toys and other children's products due to lead contamination found in millions of toys imported from China. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and taking action to safeguard consumers from lead exposure, and to provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) with the tools and funding it needs to safeguard the public.

The House on December 19, 2007, overwhelmingly approved H.R. 4040, a bill that will change current law and add more stringent lead paint and lead content standards, making them the toughest in the world. It also requires testing of children's products in accredited labs, and tracking labels on all children's products.

Furthermore, the bill authorizes increased funding for the CPSC to hire more personnel, creation of a new state-of-the-art laboratory, and the institution of an expedited release of information on health safety risks to the public. All of which will make the CPSC more effective.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce worked tirelessly to produce this bipartisan legislation and I now ask my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on this Motion to Instruct conferees and support this bipartisan House passed legislation and call for this bill to remain unchanged through the conference negotiations with the Senate.

Madam Speaker, on May 7th, Dmitri Medvedev was sworn in as the new Russian President. It remains to be seen if he will be more than just a puppet controlled by Prime Minister Putin, but if the President's victory speech is any indication, we should expect a ``direct continuation'' of Putin's iron-fisted policies.

As Russia desires to regain its stance as a major world power, rest assured Putin and Medvedev will stop at nothing to achieve this. As Americans, we should be wary of Putin's legacy of government corruption, diminished democracy, and antagonistic stance

toward its former Soviet neighbors and the West.

Although there may be opportunities for the U.S. to re-engage with Russia under Medvedev, we must proceed with caution. Let us not forgot that there are Iranian enrichment facilities in Russia, and that Russia uses its oil and gas resources to manipulate and control its sovereign neighbors.

These are the characteristics of an emerging dictatorship hiding beneath the mask of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the War in Iraq has been difficult for all Americans. I understand and share the American people's frustration at how the war has been conducted. No one wants to bring our troops home more than I do, but conditions on the ground should dictate when our troops should leave, not domestic politics.

Regardless of if you voted for the war or against it or support immediate withdrawal or not, there is one issue we can all agree. Our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our respect and admiration. The best way to honor them is to provide them with all the necessary equipment to be safe and successful as quickly as possible. One thing our troops do not deserve is to be used as a political bargaining chip for additional billions in unrelated and unnecessary spending.

Unfortunately, that is what the Democrat leadership has done with the bill before us today. By playing politics, Democrats are ensuring that the troops will not get their funding prior to Memorial Day. Our troops do not deserve this kind of treatment. This is an insult to our men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom.

This is most unfortunate because the first amendment, which I urge all my colleagues to support, contains funding for some very vital programs. For example, it includes $75 million in FY 2008 and $300 million in FY 2009 for traumatic brain injury care and research. In addition, the measure provides $95 million to address gaps identified by the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. The funding is designed to improve case management, data sharing, and the disability evaluation system. These, among others, are very critical to our troops and their families. They deserved to be enacted, not held up for petty political reasons.

Certainly mistakes have been made in Iraq and a change of strategy was long overdue. Now that the surge has been fully implemented and been given time to work, there is no doubt that the security environment in Iraq continues to improve. General Petraeus has said that security progress is still fragile and reversible. Much work still needs to be done, but progress on the ground is undeniable.

The question we must continually ask ourselves is what is the cost of withdrawing our troops? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Withdrawal needs to be based on events not politics. It is important to stress that an open-ended American military commitment is both unwise and dangerous. Progress in Iraq must be measurable, enforced and based on more than just military progress.

Accordingly, Col. Christopher Hughes, who commanded the 2d Battalion of the 327th Inf. Regiment, 101st Airborne in Iraq, has identified a set of strategic benchmarks deigned to measure progress in Iraq. Col. Hughes has developed an event-driven sequence that leads to a legitimate withdrawal. His plan includes six phases and a number of different benchmarks that need to be met. I have attached this plan and make it part of my speech.

It's important to highlight that events, not an arbitrary timeline, needs to guide our strategy. Col. Hughes' milestones for an event- driven withdrawal are strategic, operational and tactical. Such benchmarks include, holding insurgent violence less than or equal to one attack on Coalition and Iraqi forces per month, having 76 operational oil refineries and producing 4.5 million barrels of oil per day. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Congressional Record Col. Hughes' full strategy for leaving Iraq.

The amendment we have before us today does not take an event-driven approach, but sets an arbitrary deadline based on politics not the situation on the ground. I urge my colleagues to vote against the second amendment today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to talk about a provision in the third amendment pertaining to the Montgomery GI Bill. As a veteran and a senior member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I understand the hardship and sacrifice of military service. I, along with many of my colleagues, have supported legislation to update and expand the GI Bill, and I am cosponsoring H.R. 5740, the legislation that this provision is based on. However, the House leadership decided to combine the updated GI Bill with a huge tax increase on many small businesses.

The Democrat tax increase would put a surcharge on the gross income for individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples with over $1 million. However, of taxpayers with $1 million or more in income, nearly 83% report that some or all of that is income from a small business. This is a massive tax increase on the gross income of small businessmen and women who operate as self-employed individuals. They are the primary source of new jobs in our nation. Instead of raising taxes, Congress could fund the new GI Bill by reducing federal spending by a mere 0.1 percent over 10 years. I am certain that we can find one- tenth of one percent of wasteful federal spending and apply that to meeting the needs of our 21st century veterans.

In addition, the third amendment includes $5.8 billion in FY 2009 funds for levee rebuilding in Louisiana. This is in addition to the $7.1 billion the federal government has already provided to repair and enhance levees. Furthermore, $9.9 billion for foreign aid is included, which represents $500 million more than requested. These may very well be worthwhile programs but do they belong in an emergency, off budget spending package?

Lastly, I want to point out that the process of how this bill came to the floor today is not in keeping with the spirit and traditions of the House. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated in her 2006 document, A New Direction for America, ``bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees.'' The Speaker went on to state that, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Furthermore, according to The Politico newspaper, ``There have been about three dozen emergency spending bills in the past 20 years, and a handful have passed without input from the Appropriations Committee, including billions in Hurricane Katrina aid and post-Sept. 11 funds. But none of the Iraq war funding bills have bypassed the Appropriations panel.''

Unfortunately, this supplemental bypassed the entire Appropriations Committee process altogether, and through the use of parliamentary gimmicks, avoids the input of both Democrat and Republican members who have real expertise in the subject areas involved, effectively shutting out the views of millions of these members' constituents.

To have the Democrat leadership cut off the people's right to be heard by such crass parliamentary maneuvers results hi great harm to the appropriations process and seriously undermines the credibility of the House of Representatives.

Our brave troops and millions of veterans deserve better. They do not deserve to be treated as political tools. We pass a clean supplemental, devoid of any unrelated, and unnecessary spending, that gets necessary equipment to our troops on the battlefield immediately . We should also pass a GI Bill that doe not unfairly tax small businesses. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership decided to play politics, while our troops and veterans have to pay the price.

Appendix I: A Strategy for Leaving Iraq

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2419, a $289 billion bill which will subsidize wealthy farmers and agribusiness, increase welfare benefits, violate pay-go rules, and will not dent our current energy needs, all paid for by the American taxpayer.

Folks, this country is facing an impending entitlement crisis. In the next few years millions of baby boomers will begin to retire and begin collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it takes in payroll taxes by 2020, and Medicare spending, that is already 13 percent of our Nations budget, will double over the next 10 years. Yet, this Democrat lead Congress sees fit to grant farm subsidies to farmers who are making up to $2.5 million in income per year.

As crop prices soar, American farm incomes are achieving record highs. Since enactment of the last farm bill in 2002, key crop prices have grown as much as 281 percent, and total farm income has more than doubled. More and more farmers are now multimillionaires. With $20 billion in increased spending, this bill irresponsibly wastes taxpayer dollars by subsidizing an industry whose profits are soaring. The evidence is clear; the Department of Agriculture estimates that the 2007 farm income was $87.5 billion, which totals a 48 percent increase from the previous year's level of $59 billion.

The search for alternative energy sources is vital to our country's national and economic security. However, this farm bill will extend tax and tariff subsidies for ethanol, while keeping in place the Federal ethanol mandate. This has directly resulted in the price of a bushel of corn in this country to triple and has failed to ease our energy crisis. The ethanol mandate to produce alternative energy has pushed up the prices not only of corn, but also of crops such as soybeans that have been abandoned by many farmers during this current corn-planting bonanza. Despite these steep price increases, large subsidies for these crops will continue under this wasteful bill and rising food costs will continue to be thrown upon our citizens.

I support our country's farmers and agree that a Federal farm program should be in place to alleviate farming poverty. However, with crop prices rising to record-breaking levels, and farm incomes doubling over the past 7 years, I cannot support a bill that seeks to subsidize multimillionaire farmers on the backs of tax paying Americans.

Mr. Speaker, efforts by Americans and our allies in Iraq have greatly weakened al Qaeda. If we withdraw our troops from Iraq before their mission is complete, we would forfeit all the progress we have made so far.

Since the surge began last year, we have made remarkable progress, both on the military front and on the political front. While we all agree that more needs to be done politically, there is no questioning the tremendous efforts our military have done to bring stability to areas once controlled by radical extremists.

There should be absolutely no question of whether we provide them the funding they need to do the job we've asked them to do. House Republicans stand united with our troops and our veterans who have fought bravely on the front lines. The least we can do is front the resources necessary for them to complete the task we sent our military to do.

We cannot delay, and we should provide this supplemental funding without extra new spending and extra new programs before we leave for Memorial Day.