Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The farm bill is described as the most important legislation that most of America ignores. It's big, complex and involves lots of money all over the country, but the details are not well known. One of the reasons might be the name. We call it a farm bill. But it could and perhaps should be called a food bill, because that is what it is.

Many people do not understand that the farm bill isn't just about farmers. It is a bill that funds food stamps, nutritional programs and farmers' markets. The programs we're talking about all impact rural, urban and suburban families alike.

Currently, our farm programs provide too little help to the majority of American farmers and ranchers. The majority of commodity payments go to a few large-scale farm operations with only 40 percent of the farmers receiving any commodity payments at all. My State of Oregon is an example. Even though it is a major agricultural producer, it really doesn't benefit that much from the farm bill.

With the 2007 farm bill reauthorization, we have a chance to make dramatic reforms in American agricultural policy by crafting forward- looking policies to help farmers manage the transition to a new farm economy. I would suggest some basic principles for strengthening the farm bill so that we ensure the future of American agriculture by giving small farmers the increased markets they need, a dependable workforce, the ability to pass their farms and heritage on to the next generation, and be protected from urban sprawl.

Farm workers also need safe, family wage jobs, and rural communities need a stronger economy. We need to provide safe access to nutrition and reliable foods to all Americans, especially the most vulnerable members of our communities; children, the elderly and the poor.

We need to increase the health and safety of our communities by improving access to local markets that can improve farmers' revenues, improve rural economies, and strengthen the vital connections between urban and rural communities. We can have programs to reimburse farmers for providing environmental services such as flood control, carbon sinks and wildlife habitat. This can help reduce global warming, increase communities' resilience to natural events, and give farmers the opportunity to diversify their revenue stream.

In short, we can move American agriculture into the 21st century by not being devoted to policies from the last 200 years.

To that end, I have recently introduced the Local Food and Farm Support Act to connect local farms to schools to provide healthy food choices for children and promoting a stronger local farm economy by providing funding and programs that connect farmers with local markets, including school to cafeteria programs, and the promotion of farmers' markets. This legislation would provide grants to farmers to explore innovative new ways to connect to local markets and increase food assistance for senior and low-income families.

Mr. Speaker, I could just as easily talk about the farm bill as being the most important piece of environmental legislation we will consider in this Congress, because the potential for energy with biomass and wind, greenhouse gas reduction and energy conservation all enable us to reduce the carbon and energy footprint of America's vast agricultural landscape. In the area of water, a sound farm bill is the best and most cost-effective way to improve the quality and quantity of water across America, and of course it is essential to land preservation.

This is why we all need to pay attention to this critical legislation. Every Member of Congress should deal with the challenge to work with America's farmers and ranchers to produce agricultural legislation that meets the needs of America in the 21st century.

I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me time to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1104 for all the reasons that have been articulated by my friend from California and my friend from Florida.

Iraq today is the scene of the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world. It rivals only the problems that are being faced in Darfur.

As has been pointed out for one group in Iraq, our moral responsibility is unquestionable to Iraqis whose lives are at risk because they helped the United States. Having cooperated with the United States military, the United Nations, or even a nongovernmental organization, can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any of the many sides of this civil war. This bill is an important first step, expanding the current limit of the 50 special translator visas to 500.

I became acutely aware of the magnitude of this problem working with a local high school in Portland, Oregon, who were partnering with the members of the Oregon National Guard who had served in Iraq and recently returned, who were trying to bring their former translator to the United States, literally to save this young woman's life. But they kept running into bureaucratic hurdles. It took us months to, thankfully, secure her entry into the United States, where she is safely a college student today in Portland, Oregon.

I have heard the same story over and over again. We should keep faith with those who have served our brave men and women in uniform. This is a basic moral responsibility and a simple issue of fairness.

What we have before us in this bill is a critical first step. But as my friend from California pointed out, it's only the first step. We have 4 million Iraqis who have been driven from their homes and tens of thousands who are at risk because they helped the United States, not just as translators but as drivers and construction workers, NGO support staff.

We are, sadly, failing Iraqi refugees. We have allowed into the United States fewer than 800 since 2003, 69 since this fall, only 1 last month. The Swedish prime minister told me last week that Sweden is going to admit 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.

I introduced, last week, bipartisan legislation H.R. 2265, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis by using all of the tools at our disposal, admitting refugees, providing assistance to the region and using diplomacy to ensure their well-being.

It would allow not 50 or 500, but 15,000 Iraqis who are at risk because they helped the United States to come to this country, along with their families. It would establish a special coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people, and requires the United States to develop, finally, plans to ensure the well-being and safety of these Iraqi refugees.

It increases the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted as refugees. This legislation has been endorsed by Amnesty International, Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, Refugees International, the Jubilee Campaign, the Truman National Security Project, and many others.

I strongly urge that we adopt this bill today. But I would implore the Members of this House, regardless of how they feel about the war in Iraq or its future, to join and cosponsor my legislation--broad, ambitious, a comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis--before it's too late, too

late for people whose only crime was working with Americans.

It is also clear that it is not just these Iraqis that we ought to be concerned about. If we cannot keep faith with refugees that the United States has a responsibility for, it sends a very unpleasant message about the reliability of working with us, and, sadly, it sows the seeds for additional instability in the region. With 1 million Iraqis in Jordan, it creates an untenable situation for the long-term stability of that country.

I strongly urge passage of this bill, but I do hope that each of my colleagues will look at the comprehensive legislation that I introduced and determine what they are going to do to stop the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Madam Speaker, this year we have an opportunity to reform our nation's farm policies, and a fundamental element of my vision to do this is the Local Food and Farm Act. By increasing the availability of fresh foods in cities, schools, and underserved communities, my bill not only strengthens market opportunities for local fanners and ranchers, but it also protects the environment and gets healthy food into our communities.

This legislation, which I am introducing today with Reps. Nancy Boyda, Steve Kagen, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bobby Rush, Donald Payne, Jan Schakowsky, Tom Allen, strengthens and expands existing programs that support value-added agriculture and fanners markets, promote the availability and affordability of healthy and fresh foods, increase fruits and vegetables in school meals, and remove barriers that keep local fanners from selling products into schools. It also establishes a new program to provide innovative financing for the processing and distribution businesses that create local jobs and are best-suited to help innovative, small and midsized farmers and ranchers take advantage of local and regional markets.

Increasing the availability of healthy and fresh foods in our communities is critical to improving the overall health and food security of the United States. By growing and distributing some of these foods locally and regionally, we can create profitable markets for many small and midsized family fanners and ranchers, help to preserve farmland, and protect the environment with reduced transportation costs and more sustainable farming practices.

Mr. Speaker, as the ethical cloud of the last dozen years has hovered over Congress, I am proud that the new Democratic Members are aggressively pursuing an agenda of ethics reform. Long overdue.

I have introduced bipartisan legislation with my Oregon colleague, Greg Walden, to help establish an independent commission to do the hard work of professionally investigating and evaluating ethics charges. I am hopeful that some provision of that nature will find its way to the floor. The

Democratic leadership has indicated that they will allow votes on key provisions and allow the votes on such proposals, the chips to fall where they may.

I am confident with a wide range of choices that we will be able to have a longer, stronger prohibition from the congressional lobby revolving door and independent oversight. I hope that Members from both sides of the aisle will seize this opportunity to strengthen our ethics framework.

Mr. Chairman, this year's Defense Authorization presented us with a great opportunity to bring the focus of the American military back in line with American values. Unfortunately, that opportunity was missed. This bill does little to correct the President's misplaced priorities of missile defense, indefinite detainment of prisoners, pre-emptive war, and weapons for wars we are not fighting today.

Last year the House passed the Military Commissions Act which attempted to add legitimacy to the improper actions of the Bush administration to ignore habeas corpus rights for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. By not adhering to the strictest standards when putting suspected terrorists on trial, we run the risk of punishing innocent people who could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is now widely known that hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay may in fact have had nothing to do with terrorism. Sadly this bill does nothing to change the status quo of wrongdoing.

It perplexes me that while we are fighting an urban war against improvised explosive devices, snipers, and suicide bombers in Baghdad, we continue to spend precious resources on weapons that are unproven or designed for an obsolete Cold War. We had an opportunity today to push the Department of Defense to review these weapons and report back to Congress on their viability and value, but unfortunately the amendment failed. I also voted for an amendment to ensure that the power to declare war solely resided with Congress, as our forefathers intended, and not with the Executive Branch. This amendment also failed. This administration has repeatedly shown that it will make bad judgment and has repeatedly crossed the line of its constitutional powers. I am deeply concerned that the House is unprepared to rein in the President's stance of pre-emptive war with Iran and it is my hope that we will not regret this decision in the future.

Finally, I planned to offer an amendment that would have simply required the Department of Defense to create a database of incidents involving unexploded ordnance. I am disappointed that it was not made in order, and that we were not able to deal with that critical issue today.

With so little progress made in this year's authorization, I am forced to vote against this bill. I will continue to work for the changes that the American people and our men and women in the military deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's permission to speak on this bill because I am pleased, as having joined with her as a member of the Budget Committee, to embrace a new direction in terms of the Democratic management of the budget.

I have been in this Chamber for the last 11 years and watched Republican performance fall short of what Republican promises were made. We have watched people who are preaching austerity fall short time after time after time, record deficits, coupled with tax benefits concentrated for those who need it the least and truly Draconian budget cuts.

We have watched, in a particular that I have specialized in in terms of the environment, the natural resource funding, the Function 300, has been cut 16 percent, and anybody who's been in our national parks has a chance to see the consequences. There have been lost conservation opportunities and Superfund cleanup has languished.

I am pleased that we have a budget framework that focuses on tax relief for those who need it the most, and there will be extended obviously those areas where there is broad bipartisan consensus dealing with the lowest income tax brackets, protection of family, marriage benefit, but the Democrats will be focusing on the tax tsunami that is bearing down on the American public, and that's the Alternative Minimum Tax which once was supposed to be limited to the wealthiest of Americans and now has morphed into a tax on middle America.

It's not the hedge fund managers that are going to be paying it, but every middle class two-income family with children is going to be threatened with this if we don't act, and that's what we have focused on.

Last but not least, we have rejected further Draconian budget cuts. They were offered up here on the floor, rejected, because people didn't want to further erode environmental protections, erode educational benefits, erode benefits for our veterans.

Instead, you have a budget that is on a path towards balance, tax relief for those who need it most, and being able to focus on critically neglected programs in the past.

Anybody who wants to look at the difference can look at what we have supported with what the Republicans have failed to deliver over the last 6 years when they controlled everything.

I appreciate the rule that's brought forward, look forward to its passage

and the passage of this ultimate legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite words.

Mr. Chairman, one listens to the ebb and flow of this debate, and you sort of lose track of what it is that we are about here this evening.

As Senator Moynihan said, that we're entitled to our own opinions, we're not entitled to our own facts. And perhaps if my friend from Texas had spent less time making up things to try and scare people back home in terms of political fantasy and spent some time dealing with the substance that we have here this evening, we would have less disagreement.

It was cited earlier that this proposal is an experiment in socialism. Well, one can look at the history of how the special status of these entities evolved from being government agencies to being in this special hybrid status of the government-sponsored enterprises. The fact is that the Federal Government sets the ground rules. Congress sets the ground rules.

As my friend, the chairman of the committee, pointed out, that there are costs associated with everything we do. Goals for affordable housing entail some cost. The regulations entail some cost and consequence. Focusing in on the lowest income has some costs and consequences. This is all right. This is what we are about here this evening is to determine whether or not, as Congress exercises its oversight, its focus, that it is appropriate in nature and it is reasonable in its outcome.

Mr. Frank has pointed out that what we are talking about here, in terms of this fund, is a tiny fraction of the overall profits of multi trillion dollar holdings. He has also pointed out, and something that has not been refuted by our friends who are trying to kill it, is that there are other proposals that they are talking about which would bear far greater impact on the profitability of the enterprises. The question we should be asking is whether the goal is one that is appropriate. And it seems to me very strongly that what has been identified here is an appropriate goal. It is consistent with the

creation of these entities. It speaks to a crying need in community after community.

I would strongly urge that we vote down this and each of these proposals to gut this essential provision that would help us make substantial progress in providing affordable housing for those who need it most.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this evening's debate. It has been lively and at times amusing.

I rise to offer an amendment to extend the effort that is intended here to extend home ownership to a greater number of families.

The problem that I seek to focus on is that by having a uniform threshold for the loan limits understates the purchasing power of people in often high-cost, low-impact areas, people who live, for example, in urban areas, in central cities, who spend far less on energy and transportation than the typical person but often is faced with much higher home costs and they get caught in a double whammy. They are actually better credit risks because they have more disposable income, but they are running up against loan limits that discriminate against them.

The average American family spent over $5,100 in gasoline, home heating, and electricity last year. Families routinely list transportation cost as their second largest household expenditure on average. Sometimes it is the greatest.

Research shows that when these families live locally near where they work, shop, and socialize close to public transportation, they actually have more disposable income.

My amendment would instruct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to credit mortgage applications for the savings that a transportation-friendly location and energy-efficient home generate, making it easier for these homeowners to purchase these homes. By recognizing the added purchasing power home buyers generate from both transportation and energy savings, lenders can quantify these savings and place them in the ``shelter'' category of expenses. This would allow home buyers, based on his or her enhanced buying power, to either qualify for a mortgage or qualify for a larger mortgage.

This would have a particular benefit for lower income and first-time home buyers in locations that they tend to congregate that are more efficient. It will strengthen the communities that we wish to celebrate that are less impactful on the environment, requiring this energy. It would encourage families to reduce vehicle and energy use. This will translate into benefits for the larger community in terms of congestion, cleaner air, and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Now, this is not an unknown concept. I know there are some that have some concerns about it. Fannie Mae has been a partner in pilot programs offering what are termed location and energy efficient mortgages in the past. It has been limited to just a few cities, but these programs have demonstrated that they make a difference on the lives of the families that have been able to benefit from them.

There was a pilot project in Illinois, in Chicago, for the first time, the first initiative, with the location, energy efficient mortgage, and it provided a $53,000 benefit for the people involved in terms of the home that they could qualify for.

I would respectfully suggest that this amendment would extend the effort that the committee has to promote affordable housing. It would eliminate the discrimination against people in these energy and transportation efficient areas, and it would provide more justice to people in terms of what we are trying to provide in this system.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have great respect for the chairman, and I do appreciate what he is saying, that there are some issues involved in going from a pilot project to a national effort.

I look forward to working with your task force under the chairmanship of my friend from Colorado. I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I would be happy to withdraw my amendment at the appropriate time and work with the committee in that fashion.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Energy Saving Mortgages Amendment'' to H.R. 1427. This amendment calls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac work with lenders to quantify a household's monthly savings for purchasing an energy-efficient home or from living in a neighborhood providing transit and other transportation alternatives and shifts those savings into the ``shelter'' category of expenses. The amendment forces lenders to recognize the added purchasing power homebuyers generate by saving on energy and transportation costs. This allows the homebuyer, based on their enhanced buying power, either to qualify for a mortgage or to qualify for a larger mortgage.

By requiring lenders to quantify these savings, the amendment helps lower-income or first-time homebuyers qualify for mortgages to purchase homes located in transit-friendly locations or for homes that incorporate greater energy efficient building technologies. It also increases the lending ceiling for homebuyers purchasing a home in a neighborhood that allows for transportation savings from access to transit or other forms of transportation and for home buyers purchasing an energy efficient home.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 26: Page 93, after line 9, insert the

following new section:

Madam Speaker, Iraq is the scene of the world's fastest growing humanitarian crisis: 4 million people displaced, half of whom have fled the country altogether, with another 50,000 or more added to the rolls every month.

What are we doing to help, especially the tens of thousands who are in danger because they helped the United States, like serving as interpreters? Last month the United States allowed exactly one Iraqi refugee to enter the United States.

No matter what your position is on the war in Iraq or its future, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2265, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugee Act, comprehensive legislation that would put somebody in charge, set modest levels for refugees entitled to come to our country, and authorize programs to help them. It is the least we can do for people whose lives are at risk because they helped Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1700, the Community Oriented Policing Services Reauthorization Act, which has provided greater numbers of police officers to protect our citizens in every State in the union. My district in Oregon has benefited significantly from this program through the addition of 279 police officers and a total of over $24 million secured for local law enforcement agencies since 1994.

I find it perplexing that the administration continually attempts to reduce funding for COPS when independent studies confirm that the grants significantly contributed to the crime reduction in the late 1990s. Nationally, the strain on law enforcement has never been greater, as resources are stretched to combat the recent rise in crime while also addressing homeland security responsibilities. For this reason, I support the revitalization of this program to protect our families and give law enforcement the support they need.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to add my voice, expressing the appreciation to Mr. Loebsack and to the Iowa delegation for bringing this resolution forward commemorating the service of our friend and former colleague, Jim Leach.

The 30 years that we were privileged in this body to watch him at work, the words, the recitation to what Jim Leach did doesn't do him justice. He was dignified and principled, one of the few people who could navigate these Halls successfully without ever being mired in partisan politics, doing it his way, a way that was right for the country, if often difficult for him politically.

Just reciting the facts misses the quality of his service. Jim Leach predicted the savings and loan crisis. He was spot on in his observations about American diplomacy from the Middle East to North Dakota. I meant to say North Korea, probably North Dakota as well, as I think about it.

He, as an example of his principled nature, resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of President Nixon's firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

In his congressional campaigns, he was one of the few people who refused to accept PAC contributions and out of State donations. He wouldn't run negative ads, and he tried to stop outside groups who were supporting him from, in turn, running negative ads.

In 1997, he refused to vote for Speaker Newt Gingrich because of deep ethics concerns. And while it was the right thing to do, as history has shown, it was a tough vote against a sitting Speaker in your own party. But it was an example of how Jim Leach operated.

He correctly predicted what was going to happen with our ill-advised adventure in Iraq with great clarity and force in committee and on the floor. And then he voted against it, again, at some difficulty for himself politically, particularly at that time. That wasn't the direction of the prevailing winds in his party or in the country.

But that's how Jim Leach was. He thought about issues. He analyzed them. He shared his analysis in his own thoughtful, understated way. He was usually right, and the congressional deliberations were better as a result.

I must say that I'm sorry that President Bush chose not to take the advice of dozens of Members in this body on both sides of the aisle who urged that Jim Leach be appointed as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, a post for which he would be eminently well qualified.

I am confident we will see a new chapter in his distinguished career whether in the United Nations, perhaps in a new administration. As a friend, a colleague and an American, I look forward to whatever that next chapter is in Jim's career.

Madam Speaker, today's votes on the Iraq supplemental with benchmarks and the Iraqi withdrawal bill are important steps as congressional Democrats do everything we can to reverse the President's disastrous Iraq policy.

I support the vote to withdraw troops because it is consistent with the comprehensive legislation I introduced, ``The New Direction in Iraq Act'' and the supplemental because it is a way to keep the pressure on the President. Support for the continued occupation of Iraq is fraying, as Republicans have started to say in private what the American people started realizing long ago.

I have opposed the war from the start, and these votes hasten the day when we bring the tragedy of the Iraq war to a close. I will continue to do everything in my power to end this tragic chapter in our history.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and Congressman Christopher Shays, I am introducing the ``Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act.'' Iraq is the world's fastest growing refugee crisis, yet the U.S. response has been minimal.

For one group in particular, however, our moral responsibility is unquestionable--Iraqis who are at risk because they helped the United States. Having cooperated with the United States military, the United Nations or even with a nongovernmental organization can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any of the many sides in this civil war.

Our legislation would admit Iraqis to the United States who are at risk because they helped coalition or reconstruction efforts in Iraq, establish a Special Coordinator for Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons and require strategies to ensure the well-being and safety of Iraqi refugees in the region; and increase the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted to the United States as refugees.

I urge every Member of the House to cosponsor this broad, ambitious and comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis before it is too late for the people whose only crime was working with Americans.