Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while I agreed with my friend from Wisconsin about the farm bill, he could not be more wrong when it comes to what is happening here on this energy legislation.

First and foremost, it is not just the appearance of PAYGO. We are rolling up our sleeves and actually funding this legislation, instead of the borrow-and-spend policies that we have seen the other side of the aisle practice for the last 12 years. We have a bipartisan ``pay- for'' that was approved in the first hours of this session, closing an unnecessary loophole that was snuck in in the last session of Congress.

The notion about picking winners and losers is also wrong. With the leadership our Chair of the select committee, Mr. Neal, we had extensive hearings to listen to what happened across-the-board in terms of alternative energy. We have rationalized how they are treated for subsidizing wind, for solar, for biomass, for wave energy, a whole range of alternative energy sources.

We are not picking winners and losers. We are extending tax subsidies, and we are treating them all fairly to let the marketplace act. We are increasing the supply of energy. By providing incentives for domestic production of alternatives it is going to make a huge difference. And we are relying on the energy and activity of cities and States across the country that are far ahead of the Federal Government when it comes to dealing with global warming, with dealing with energy efficiency. We have at least 612 cities that have already initiated their own Programs of Kyoto compliance. We are

providing some resources to help them do something about it.

Last, but not least, we are closing the egregious loophole that had the Federal Government subsidize the purchase of the largest, most energy-inefficient luxury cars. We have closed that hummer loophole. We are instead using this money to provide opportunities for using smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles; and we are subsidizing plug-in hybrids, a very good trade off.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas doesn't understand, I fear, how the Hummer loophole works. It is not the suburban mom running around with their kids in a Hummer or a Cadillac Escalante. It only is for business use that the Hummer loophole applies.

We are closing it for business use, so there is not an extra incentive for somebody to buy the largest, most fuel inefficient vehicles, and gives them a tax break that they won't give to somebody who buys a Ford Taurus.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what my colleagues have said previously. I would take it from a slightly different angle. We are concerned about value added to American forest products.

I have watched in the Northwest the development of wood utilization research to deal with plywood and particle wood that are formaldehyde- free. It enables us to be able to provide a superior environmental product, adds greater value, protects the public and competes against foreign products where they are cutting corners. It wouldn't be possible without this type of partnership, from an environmental perspective, from an economic perspective, from a research perspective. I strongly urge rejection and look at that and suggest people look at how the $6 million has been spent in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed this bill, much as I opposed the ``Iran Freedom Support Act'' last year, because it threatens the united international diplomatic front that's needed to block Iran's nuclear weapons program. Instead of sanctioning Iran, this bill will sanction allies in Europe and Asia.

I do not object to efforts to punish ``sham'' subsidiaries that are set up specifically to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran. However, the U.S. government already has this authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the language in H.R. 957 is clearly meant to extend sanctions to overseas subsidiaries that are legally and legitimately incorporated outside of the United States. Passage of this bill will set back our diplomatic efforts with regards to Iran and only serve to diminish our global influence on this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I listened with a somewhat incredulous nature here to my colleague from Minnesota repeating the litany from our Republican friends that somehow this is a leap into socialism and represents a dramatic change.

Well, first of all, Madam Speaker, it ought to be clear that there are some States where there have been eligibility limits that have been increased. But why? Because Governors, including many of them Republican Governors, have requested waivers. Who gives the waivers? They have been granted by the Bush administration. If you think it is wrong to expand health care for more children, for some with slightly higher income levels, then stop granting the waivers.

This isn't a problem that somehow Democrats are leaping into socialized medicine. This is an effort at the State and local level to meet these critical problems. That is why the legislation today is going to pass with overwhelmingly partisan support.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I'm not. I rely on my wife.

Mr. Speaker, the same framework that our friends have been complaining about on the other side of the aisle is a State block grant program has been retained. It's successful, but underfunded.

Their complaints of enhanced programs ring hollow when you examine them. I heard my friend the distinguished minority whip come to the floor and talking about his opposition to higher income levels, and I find some irony in that because his State is one of them, Missouri where there was a request by his son, the Republican Governor, for a waiver from the Republican Bush administration which has been granted that allows a level 3 times higher than the poverty level.

They don't feel comfortable with the requests that are coming from the State level for the innovation. However, that's what it was about in the first place.

This program is not about putting Medicare Advantage at risk. It's being adjusted. This bill helps with reform. I am pleased that 157 counties in 27 States are being rewarded with an efficiency bonus. My State's medical system is strengthened by helping kids.

I urge all to vote for this bill.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this measure, because I strongly support the rule and look forward to the enactment of the Conference Committee Report. It represents hard work and has been acknowledged by my former colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whom I miss a great deal.

Like many Members, I have some projects in here that I, too, am pleased to see move forward, particularly some environmental restoration in the State of Oregon that is going to smooth fish passages.

I must say that, in terms of the thing that excites me most about the bill, though, is the movement towards the reform of our Water Resources policies. I have long talked about this on the floor. I have attempted, as a member of the committee, to support them and continue to move this work forward.

As I look at the bill in its totality, there were some good things from the Senate, and some good things in the House version. I think the conferees worked to enhance the overall reform aspects of this legislation.

I am particularly pleased that we've been able to retain the update of the principles and guidelines which have not been changed since 1983. I think this is absolutely essential and look forward to the progress that the Corps can make in this area.

I appreciate the fact that the conferees worked to strengthen and refine language on independence review for large projects. Much of the time, at least some of the controversy that we have faced in the political arena would have been avoided if we would have had this independent review mechanism in place. But I think there is a lesson that we all must pay attention to, that once we have the independent review, it's very important that we listen to what the independent review concludes.

One project that I'm less than totally enthusiastic about, the Upper Mississippi Lock and Dam Project, had independent reviews from the GAO, from the National Academy of Sciences, from the Army's Inspector General that all were negative but somehow the project continues to move forward.

It is important that we are sensitive to this. I take modest exception to my good friend from Washington being concerned about the language here to make it easier for dam removal. We have 60,000 dams that relate to the Depression era, for instance. We found last year that there are a number of dams in the Northeast; we don't know who is responsible for their maintenance. It is important in many cases to be able to sensitively, environmentally decommission dams in order to protect the public safety.

As it relates to the Everglades, bear in mind we are spending billions of dollars undoing an earlier Corps of Engineers project. As it relates to the areas around New Orleans in Louisiana, there was a three-quarters of a billion dollar navigation project in an area where river traffic was static or declining at the very point of the levee failure. That money could have been better spent protecting New Orleans. In fact, the LSU Hurricane Research Center thinks that that navigation project actually may have amplified the surge and put more people at risk. At a time when we are dealing with global warming and climate change, the stakes are higher than ever.

This bill represents an important step forward. I hope that we're able to work with the committee in its implementation and its oversight so we can build on this foundation and be better off as we move forward.

I would be happy to yield.

I will continue to yield. I would like 20 seconds at the end though, Doc.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's clarification.

My point was that this is important because there comes a time when many dams outlive their usefulness. They either have to be restored or removed. They can actually pose a danger to the public. I don't want us to be frozen in place, unable to respond in the best way.

There may come a time when people want to reassess big dams, small dams. What is in this committee report, however, is something I think is long overdue, to give the Corps flexibility in areas where there is little or no controversy; and I think it's important, that we need to be focusing more attention.

I will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do the right thing in the Northwest and make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences, and I will work with him to make sure that this is not an unintended consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, as I have proudly supported each of this Democratic majority's initiatives to strengthen lobbying and ethics reform in Washington.

In the current political climate it is increasingly clear that Congress must serve as an example for the Federal Government. With this bill's passage, Americans can be confident that their representatives in Congress will be held to an ever-higher standard of conduct.

This bill closes the most abused loopholes by banning lobbyist-funded gifts and travel, reforming congressional earmarks, and by prohibiting Members from influencing outside hiring decisions for partisan gain. It also addresses the larger issues of reform by requiring public disclosure of bundled campaign contributions and lobbyist activity. And if that isn't enough, this bill also increases the punishment for Members and lobbyists who break the law.

It's clear this bill raises the bar for congressional conduct. I look forward to its passage and to the creation of a more open government.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership.

This is an example of a simple, commonsense reform that needs to be in a farm bill. Just because it was buried in the overall administrative proposal and rejected does not mean that it doesn't have merit. It's not that this just saves money; it avoids an unnecessary complication and room to game the system.

What Mr. Boehner said is true, there are billions of dollars at play here. Obviously this may not be supported in the farm country to fix the loophole because this is an opportunity for them to make unjustified money.

I strongly urge support with this simple, commonsense reform.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where my friend from Illinois is coming from, but the chairman said it right. This would be an indirect subsidy for some of the largest operations who need it the least, and it would penalize people who need this assistance. Even though there is a plus- up under the bill, it

doesn't go far enough to meet the need for conservation. We will find that out.

I strongly support what we have heard from the chair and the ranking member. I do think this is the environmental position, and I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment in order to highlight an important but unfortunately not well understood farmland preservation tool used by communities across the country.

The United States loses more than 4,000 acres of farmland and open space to development every day. Since 1945,

America has lost nearly 20 percent of its farmland. Some of the best farmland, which is close to our growing cities, is being lost to development on an ongoing basis.

Sadly, local governments have few tools to protect this farmland. They can issue regulations, which some feel is burdensome; they can purchase land; or they can purchase development rights from landowners to prevent development, which can be very expensive.

Transferrable development rights, called TDRs in the trade, are an important market-based tool used by States and cities to protect farmland, property rights, and taxpayer dollars.

Under a TDR program, development rights can be separated from a parcel of land and sold to a private party, usually a developer. The developer can then use these rights to develop in an urbanizing region with a high demand for development that is already served by highways, water and sewer systems, not taking out scarce farmland.

This creates a private market for development rights and gives farmers options. Under this system, the private sector rather than tax dollars is paying for preservation of the parcel from which rights are purchased.

Successful TDR programs have been in place throughout the country since 1980 and have protected tens of thousands of acres of farmland and open space. They are currently in use in over 170 communities around the country, including Montgomery and Calvert Counties in Maryland, Blue Earth County in Minnesota, and Boulder County in Colorado. My amendment would simply clarify that funding from the Farm and Ranchland Protection program, which has been very successful in preserving farmland through the purchase of conservation easements, can be used for this type of program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us on this. The beauty of the Transfer of Development Rights programs is, when they are working correctly, they don't need government funding. However, an initial grant is sometimes extraordinarily useful in getting a program started in the first place. It is why I think funding from the FRPP is important.

Upon the gentleman's request, I am happy to withdraw this amendment, as long as we can work to make sure that the intent, and I actually think this is the intent of the existing legislation, to work with you to clarify the language to make sure that this innovative program will help stretch the tax dollars for the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program even further.

Our Nation's farmers face development pressures every single day, and we need to ensure that communities are able to use all the tools available to help the farmers who want to keep farming resist development pressures.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and look forward to working with him.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.

Three simple points. First of all, this amendment does not abolish the sugar program. It just doesn't make it worse.

Second, every independent agency, CBO, GAO, Department of Commerce, all conclude that this is not a no-cost program to Americans. It costs them over $1 billion.

Third, in terms of the cost per job saved that my friend from Florida was concerned about, the Department of Commerce has pegged that at $826,000 per job. One job in sugar production for three in sugar manufacturing. It's not a good trade-off.

Mr. Speaker, part of the agenda of the New Democratic Leadership was to pass the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act'', which has been bottled up for years. By doing so, we are taking an important step in improving the safety of all Americans.

This bill brings about a positive change to our current homeland security strategy. It provides a new formula for grant funding distribution based on risks in order to remove the politics from our national security. It contains a

substantial amount of funding for improving communications interoperability among first responders, which will help Oregon as it continues to aggressively address the issue at the local level. It also provides nearly $4 billion over the next four years for rail, transit, and bus security, a matter which I have had a long standing interests. We have seen the devastating impacts of terrorism on these modes of transportation in Europe in recent years and it is crucial that we make investments to protect this infrastructure at home.

These changes and many others recommended by the 9/11 Commission represent an important and long overdue step forward to securing our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a bipartisan instinct in Congress that has been evident for years. We all want to reform our farm policies in the ``next'' farm bill. That is why the bill that is coming forward from the Agriculture Committee couldn't find any way to reform the crop insurance program. Luckily, it looks as though the Rules Committee will make in order a rule that will force that upon the committee, saving up to 40 cents on the dollar.

There are no meaningful limitations on extraordinarily wealthy farmers. They talk about reform, but the limitation raises only $46 million a year from 3,175 farmers. And if the farmer can't get their adjusted gross income under $1 million, they ought to get a new CPA.

I strongly urge my colleagues to just read some of the news accounts like this morning's Washington Post that talks about what is in this bill. And if you do, I think you will join with us in supporting the Kind-Flake amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his hard work.

I witnessed for several hours yesterday the great challenges the Rules Committee faced, but I must confess that this rule puts a lot of us in a very difficult position. I am disappointed, to say the least.

This is not just a farm bill; it's the most important rural economic development bill, the most important trade bill, the most important opportunity to broaden the benefits for family farmers and ranchers, and the most important environmental bill that we will vote on this year.

Sadly, I will say at least that leadership did allow the amendment that I'm pleased to work with my friend, Mr. Kind, Mr. Flake and Mr. Ryan, the Fair amendment, to at least be heard, but it's only going to be heard for 20 minutes a side. They refused to allow debate on specific areas of meaningful reform, like the legislation that I had proposed to cap at $250,000 an absolute limit. I think it's a serious miscalculation.

This bill deserves to be fully and fairly debated. Now, I almost said I fear that minority voices would be shut out. But it's not the minority of Americans who share the views and objectives that it's time for meaningful reform. Because of the complexity, the misinformation and the powerful special interests that are involved here, it means that this shot that we have, our one shot for the next 5 years, is critical.

Sadly, there is always an excuse to not do all that we can do. Coddling cotton multimillionaires while talking big and delivering modestly is a failure of political will.

I hope at least my colleagues will vote for the Fair amendment. And I hope that the debate, as it proceeds, will be administered as fairly and as openly as possible to allow as many voices to be heard as we can ask.

Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank Representative Alcee Hastings for bringing together, in his amendment, two important pieces of legislation for research funding and protection of habitat for pollinators--the bees, birds, bats and other animals and insects that help sustain more than two-thirds of the world's crop species. Pollinators are responsible for one out of every three mouthfuls of food eaten.

Despite the critical role that pollinators play for our food supply and ecosystem health, we are seeing disruptions of localized pollination systems and declines of certain species of pollinators on every continent except Antarctica. Populations of a variety of pollinator species have been declining in recent years due to loss of habitat, improper use of pesticides and herbicides, replacement of native plant species with non-native or engineered plants, and the introduction of non-native, invasive species, either by accident or through farming practices.

I'm pleased to see that this amendment places a greater emphasis in existing USDA conservation programs on habitat and other pollinator- beneficial best management practices to protect and enhance native and managed pollinators, which was the key component of H.R. 2913, which I introduced this Congress.

In addition, the amendment provides research funding to address Colony Collapse Disorder in honey bees places, an issue championed by my friend Mr. Hastings and his bill, H.R. 1709.

This amendment will help keep pollinator populations healthy and improve the viability of our food supply and our environment. I urge its adoption.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I appreciate his leadership. Along with our friend from Arizona and from Wisconsin, we have before you a real opportunity to make a difference.

Now, my heart goes out to the committee. They had a tough job. They went, I think, as far as they could, given the dynamics they had. Some of the things they did I strongly support and, in fact, have worked for. Those good items are now all protected under our initiative. In fact, many of them are actually enhanced.

They are enhanced not by throwing money at it, but by actually having real reform; not talking about reform, not moving towards reform, but actually doing it. Our bipartisan amendment is paid for, and it does so by helping most farmers.

My State of Oregon is an example. Under this initiative, we will gain more than $140 million in every congressional district over the life of this effort. We do this not by new taxes and new programs; we change the dynamic. No longer will 80 percent of America's farmers and ranchers get little or nothing. No longer will we have, in this case, a sham, I'm sorry to say, payment limitation that will only affect one- tenth of a percent of America's farmers, those who are at $1 million, it will only save $45 million, which shows you that it doesn't have much impact.

I would say that any farmer who can't get their adjusted gross income under $1 million probably needs to look for a new CPA, not a new subsidy. We stop the lunacy in a time of record high corn prices. We are going to give them 10 more billion dollars. If we don't give them 10 more billion dollars in a time of record high corn prices, we are going to shred the safety net? I would argue, not. Have a real limit, help the budget, and, most important, help America's family farmers.

Pass this amendment.

Madam Speaker, we will face a very stark choice on the farm bill this week. The hollow claims of reform are exposed by the fact that it hardly saves any money at all and retains the complex system with special provisions to avoid what we say we want to do: concentrate on our family farms.

It preserves a system where five commodities, rice, cotton, wheat, soy beans, and corn, will continue to claim most of the money and dominate our farm policy. It is perverse because it continues to enrich those experts at farming the taxpayer while continuing to squeeze out the family farmers, driving up land prices and giving the big guys a competitive advantage. That is why the overwhelming majority of farmers favor a strict cap of $250,000 a year. You can ask independent experts, not lobbyists and associate members. Ask your own farmers.

Let's amend the committee bill, currently the least that can be done, with a vote for a series of amendments that will strengthen it and provide the sort of support our farmers deserve.