Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, there have been assertions that somehow the American sugar industry is down. Because of the changes that were made in the last farm bill, prices soared up to 92 percent. And so there was a temporary increase in American sugar, which created some downward pressure, which in fact is going to require the American taxpayer to bail out in the next several years because of the sugar program's feedstock flexibility.

We are talking about returning to the 2002 law. Every independent economist agrees that the American consumer is paying from $2 billion to $3.5 billion excess.

The reason jobs are going to Canada is not because their jobs pay less, it is because the sugar price is less. There are far more jobs in the industries that use sugar than those who produce it.

We are merely asking to return to the 2002 provisions, which were generous enough. Someday--someday--we will deregulate. Someday we will truly

reform. But in the short term this is a reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Chair, I support the Dairy Security Act language as it was included in the Committee-passed draft of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act. Inadvertently, I voted in support of Amendment No. 99, sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte to H.R. 1947. My intention was to vote against the amendment and to support the dairy provisions in the underlying bill.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Radel

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

Mr. Chairman, the Conservation Reserve Program has sparked major improvements in water quality, wildlife habitat and wetlands. However, high crop and land prices are spurring landowners to once again pull millions of vulnerable acres back under the plow as their CRP leases expire.

In the last 10 years, we've seen a number of acres equal to the area of the State of Indiana taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program and put back into production. This means that the CRP's environmental benefits are not well leveraged, and taxpayer dollars don't earn the return they should because they've spent 5 years protecting land simply to have it disappear at the end of the easement period.

This amendment makes a set of simple revenue-neutral changes to the CRP to provide more lasting protection of water, wildlife, and soil, and to make sure that we are fully leveraging Federal spending. It requires, to the extent possible, 20 percent of the funds dedicated to the Conservation Reserve Program to be used in the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program, the CCRP, and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP. These programs are a subset of the Conservation Reserve Program and help leverage State matching funds to produce even greater conservation benefits.

In particular, the CREP program gives States flexibility to target high-priority conservation and environmentally sensitive areas, which helps coordinate Federal and local priorities and spending and ensures that any spending is targeted to produce the best results.

The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program is a program that is consistently oversubscribed that helps farmers re-enroll in the program continuously, rather than just once a year. Adding acreage to this program gives farmers more flexibility. It also protects the long-term conservation benefits of the CRP program so that taxpayers get what they pay for. These small changes are revenue neutral and will help CRP produce better outcomes for the environment and for taxpayers, leverage State matching funds, and provide long-term stability for farmers.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to help focus on more long-lasting protection for the water, wildlife, and soil. I appreciate what the ranking member said in terms of issues for additional funding for wildlife habitat, and I have another amendment coming forward which I think helps address that.

In the meantime, having an opportunity here to--and I mentioned in the amendment ``to the extent possible,'' the 20 percent is dedicated for the Continuous Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Being able to focus and leverage the local funds seems to me to provide long-term stability and leveraging the State matching. I see my colleague from Virginia is here, but he wants to speak to the next amendment.

I respectfully request that Members join with me in an amendment that is supported by the Environmental Working Group, the National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Trust, Organic Trade Association, Slow Food, Food Democracy

Now, Organic Consumers Union, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Allowing us to be able to move forward in this regard, I think, would be a positive. I didn't hear any compelling reasons from my friends other than they thought it would be taken care of. I think this amendment will ensure that it will move forward and respectfully ask that it be approved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I appreciate the Rules Committee having made this amendment in order. It makes important revenue-neutral changes to the EQIP program to protect the original intent of the program, to use tax dollars better to help more farmers, and to produce better results for the taxpayers.

In difficult budget times, we must prioritize maximizing value and saving money. This amendment makes several changes to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to restore the 1996 language. It implements stricter payment limits to make sure we're not spending too much money on any one project. And at a time when demand for conservation funding is as much as four times greater than the supply, we can't afford to let a few huge projects crowd out available funding.

This amendment also reinstates the original 1996 EQIP language which eliminated spending for factory farms. That language was included in 1996 because Members were nervous that too much of the EQIP would end up going to just a few family farm projects, and they were right.

The legislation also provides additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or antibiotics. As the United States doctors and scientists become increasingly concerned about the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in meat production, we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for farmers and ranchers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics.

Finally, it clarifies that EQIP is intended to be used as a short- term program and protects the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program set- aside, which has been in place since the program began.

The opposition comes from those who are using conservation dollars for purposes that most Americans would not consider to be conservation related. Recent data shows that one in four EQIP dollars in the last 10 years has been spent on large structural projects that produce limited conservation benefits and are extremely expensive. I noted in the press this last week one project, almost $2 million, yet the average is about $13,500.

I appreciate the opportunity to start this discussion and think about how best to spend limited conservation dollars for maximum conservation benefits. I respectfully suggest that that's to be found with this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 75 seconds to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I appreciate my friend's joining me. The crux of this issue is, who's going to get the benefit? There were over 300,000 contracts, and 92 projects took 20 percent of the money. This amendment would target it for those far greater number. Most of the large, confined animal feedlot operations manage on their own--the rest of them can. Focus it for people who need it the most, not have a bunch of the money sucked up by large, industrial agricultural activities.

Provide more benefit for more farmers and ranchers. Approve this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Colorado and my friend from Kentucky in moving this forward. Nineteen States have passed pro-industrial hemp legislation; nine States removing barriers to its production altogether. As has been pointed out, these products are perfectly legal in the United States, some $300 million a year, but it just has to be grown someplace else.

It's outrageous that American farmers can't produce it, but what this amendment does is to simply permit the research opportunities for colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for academic and agricultural research purposes.

If this amendment passes and we're able to do this research in agricultural colleges and universities, then we're not going to have stupid talking points coming from DEA, and we won't have misleading statements that are made. People will understand why other countries have been able to figure this out, and the United States will be able. Nobody, regardless of your position on this, should be opposed to allowing our research colleges and universities to be able to do a deep dive to be able to find out what's possible.

Mr. Speaker, the House is in the process this week of dealing with the most important bill that almost no one has paid any attention to. I'm talking about the FARRM Bill. It goes far beyond dealing with needs of rural and small town America.

It's going to involve, with all likelihood, given the way the past farm bills have exceeded their budget estimates, it's very likely to be over $1 trillion.

The FARRM Bill is actually getting better, slowly but surely, but it has a long way to go to get the most value out of this bill for America's farmers and ranchers, for the people who eat and for protection of the environment.

Mr. Speaker, this week I will be offering some amendments that I hope will be made in order that will try and coax more value out of this process. The first and foremost, based on legislation I've introduced, the Balancing Food, Farm, and Environment Act, would strengthen the environmental quality incentives program to have stricter payments, so we're not putting too much money into any one project, and would disallow spending for large factory farms, but provide additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or antibiotics and stretch those conservation dollars further.

I also have an amendment that would reform the Conservation Reserve Program to direct more money to conservation enhancement and continuous conservation reserve subprograms to

target the most environmentally sensitive areas and reenroll higher priority lands, providing more stability for farmers, better results for the taxpayers, and more flexibility at the State level.

Third, and perhaps most important, an amendment I'm cosponsoring, along with Mr. Chaffetz, would apply reasonable limits for means testing crop insurance. The crop insurance program needs greater scrutiny by Congress. It is an area where the Federal Government provides huge subsidies to insurance companies to sell and service the policies. It pays most of the indemnities when there are losses and generous subsidies to make the premiums cheaper for farmers.

Today, in The New York Times, there was an article that talks about the fraud and waste in the program that, really, we haven't zeroed in. There are clear areas of abuse that need more attention.

My friend Mr. McGovern had an amendment that said before you slash nutrition, at least have the rate of fraud and abuse down to the same level as food stamps. I think that's a good proposal.

The amendment that I have introduced with Mr. Chaffetz, it would put a limit of $750,000, beyond which we would no longer subsidize the crop insurance for the large agribusinesses. It's not that they couldn't have crop insurance; it's just the taxpayer will not be on the hook.

It's important for us to start paying attention to the crop insurance program. As we, theoretically, get rid of direct payments, although we still are going to have direct payments for cotton, and I have an amendment on that as well, it's important to look at the overall structure of this program. We don't want to be in a situation where, actually, we're going to end up paying more for crop insurance than the cost of traditional commodity programs proposed by the House and the Senate, and that there are not incentives to be able to use it efficiently and to root out fraud and abuse.

I would strongly urge my colleagues to look at amendments like I have proposed, and others. Look at how the FARRM Bill, the most important environmental nutrition and economic development for small towns and rural America, can be done better.

It's past time to have a farm bill that is environmentally sound, that is cost effective and targets areas that need the help the most. This ought to be an area where we can follow through on the desire to get more value out of tax dollars while we help more people.

I look forward to the debate this week. I hope it is robust, and I do hope that we'll be able to debate the wide range of these issues that would make this FARRM Bill much better.

Madam Speaker, here they go again.

Once more, the Republican controlled House is seeking to limit women's access to safe reproductive health care through this legislation, the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' While it is couched in the language of protecting unborn fetuses from pain, this bill is nothing more than a poorly disguised effort to force women and their families to give up their constitutionally protected rights (so far). The bill is not going anywhere and it inflames an issue that is among the most sensitive.

Roe vs. Wade, which was decided 40 years ago, is the law of the land. But still we have to go through this annual charade as Republican leadership tries to force those of us who support women's control over their health and potential to have children in the future to take a ``hard vote.'' I am no political Pollyanna; I understand the politics behind this strategy. But let me say, unequivocally, that this is no ``hard vote'' for me.

It is not hard for me to stand with the millions of women who depend on access to

safe, legal abortion. It is not hard for me to vote against any bill that imposes the will of an intolerant, albeit vocal, minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is not hard for me to protect freedom of choice, because it is right and it is just.

We have real challenges to address as a country, and yet Republican leadership is choosing to focus its efforts on this bill that would trump women's health, override family decisions, and compromises the ability to decide when and if to start a family. It's a blatant attack on women and it's not hard for me to say that it is wrong.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the leadership for including this amendment in the en bloc amendment.

It is important that we deal with improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.

In a situation all too familiar for our military families, every few years they find themselves living in a new military base with their children having to start a new school and having to adapt to a new environment. Making this transition even more difficult, their loved ones could be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan in constant danger.

This is an effort to make sure that we help our military installations include things that enhance the livability of that environment, to help with green space, public gardens, sidewalks, bike and running trails, things that are recognized in urban development as important amenities that add value and quality of life, while also helping the Department of Defense adapt best practices to build military bases to promote close-knit communities that work for families, which is critical.

I appreciate the progress that's been made and the committee working with us to make sure that this is enhanced as we move forward.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chair, we spend appropriate time on the floor commemorating the bravery of our men and women who were in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there were other brave men and women who worked with our soldiers, putting themselves in harm's way, and I'm referring to foreign nationals--Iraqis and Afghanistan citizens who were interpreters and who were drivers, people working for NGOs, people who made it possible for our troops to perform at the highest level. They served shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform.

Now, I am pleased that there is a partial extension in the Special Immigrant Visa program in the underlying bill for Iraqis and Afghanis. It's important that we have these special visas. I have been pleased to have played a small role in helping create the Special Immigrant Visa program that enables these people to escape harm's way. Many of them are in danger of being killed because people know that they helped our forces, and they are left behind.

I really appreciate the ranking member, the chair, and their staff for the work to help partially extend the Special Immigration Visa program. But this bipartisan amendment, offered with my colleagues, Congresswoman Gabbard and Representatives Kinzinger and Stivers, all three of whom served in the field of battle, is an opportunity to help ensure these programs finish the job for which they were created.

These programs expire for Iraq at the end of this fiscal year. That's September 30, and the following September 30 for Afghanistan. And while they are set to expire, those in Iraq and Afghanistan who made our mission possible continue to be plagued by inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles. Through fiscal year 2012, only 22 percent of the available Iraq SIVs have been issued, and only 12 percent for Afghanistan.

The Washington Post reported that over 5,000 documentarily complete Afghan applications remain in a backlog. The backlog and delay means not just weeks or months, but years for those who risked their lives to help the U.S. mission, and means living in constant fear and hiding, knowing they or their families could be killed at any moment.

Our amendment demonstrates a strong commitment from the House for comprehensive extension and reform in conference. It enhances the programs by providing efficiency, transparency, accuracy, and oversight.

Madam Chair, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Budget Committee hearing, we had Secretary Hagel and Joint Chief of Staff Dempsey walk us through the impossible position that the Department of Defense has been placed in.

Now, I'll be the first to admit--as I think they would; in fact, they said as much in the hearing--that there are areas of opportunity for additional savings, and that the Department of Defense can itself do a better job.

When you have almost half of the world's military spending by the United States, even though we are only 5 percent of the world's population and less than a quarter of the world's economic might, we can and should be able to squeeze more value. But the problem is not so much that the Department of Defense isn't willing to come forward with changes that need to be made; a great part of this problem is Congress itself.

I have proposed, from the Department of Defense, that we actually close bases, that we reform compensation and health care, that we don't force weapons systems on the Department of Defense that the military doesn't want or need. These are things that gets Congress weak in the knees. It's time for us to step up to make sure that we are having the world's most powerful military, but that we are squeezing more value out of it.

One critical area that needs greater attention is our nuclear deterrent. We have far more nuclear weapons than we'd ever want, need, or could use. It's been 68 years since the United States used a nuclear weapon in war; and no matter what you do in terms of deterrence, there's no question that we don't have to blow the world up hundreds of times over to have that deterrent work. Yet, sadly, we are poised to spend almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

The administration was forced by former Senator Kyl, as a concession for the START Treaty, to invest even more in weapons modernization. We need to step up and change that.

There are other details that need attention. When the military looked at a proposal to streamline the PX operation, where military families shop, there was a proposal by major retailers to provide exactly the same service, in many cases, equally convenient, saving a billion dollars; and yet the political pushback was such that the Pentagon turned away.

Now, dealing with things like military bands and the PX and NASCAR sponsorship are appropriate, but that's rounding error. Those are small items.

We need to deal with reforming the military, to deal with the new threats and challenges that are more serious and immediate and largely impervious to the major military footprint we've got. We need to start now, in partnership with the Department of Defense, to reduce the footprint, to restructure the force, and reform pay and benefits.

We were told yesterday that we can either reform TRICARE over the next 5 years, or we'll have 25,000 more troops to lay off. These proposals are stark, but they are immediate and they are real; and we should take advantage of them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I appreciate the hard work that the committee has undertaken. We have before you a bipartisan amendment also offered by my colleagues Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Bentivolio. The purpose of the amendment is simple: it will help make the naval fleet stronger and more sustainable by allowing the Navy to decide the level of aircraft carriers in the future; stay at the current level of 10 at some point in the future instead of going back to a congressionally mandated level. It does not eliminate any aircraft carriers.

The entire Department of Defense is in the midst of a major reality check as budgets shrink, priorities change, and new technologies emerge. I don't pretend to be a naval expert, but our Navy is being pushed into shallow waters as a result of sequestration. And now more than ever, we should allow them to make the decisions.

I have been a little concerned that some people in opposition say that this amendment would make a 10-carrier fleet permanent. Nothing could be further from the truth. It simply will allow the Navy to decide if it wants 10 aircraft carriers at some point in the next three decades. Now, if they're afraid that this will happen, then it means they think that the Navy 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now will decide that they have higher strategic needs.

The history of the 12-carrier requirement was imposed for the first time in two centuries by Congress in 2006. That number, being unsustainable, was reduced to 11 in 2007. That cap still being too high, the Navy had to seek a waiver from the Congress to temporarily drop it to 10.

If the amendment passes, the Navy will still go back to 11 carriers in 2016 when the Ford is commissioned. But at that point, we should allow the Navy to decide, not people in Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say the Navy is going to have 11 carriers when the one under construction goes into operation. Nothing in this amendment denies them that.

What it says is that, subsequently, going out 20 or 30 years, the decision about the minimum level will be left to the Navy, not Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

The notion here that somehow, unless we impose a permanent mandate on the Navy, they are not going to do what my friends from Connecticut and Virginia say they're going to do, I think, is ludicrous.

This is a symbol of Congress micromanaging, substituting its judgment for that of the command structure. It is, I think, important for us to, in a small way, express confidence in them. They will have their 11 aircraft carriers, as the Gerald Ford is commissioned. They'll be back at 11.

The question is, are we going to have a mandate in perpetuity to substitute our judgment for the realities of the Navy in 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, regardless of force structure, threats or technology?

This is a small symbol of what's wrong with the process here and why we can't get control over many of the budget issues.

I'd respectfully suggest support for this bipartisan amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the passage of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform Act in 2010 to rein in Wall Street, end taxpayer bailouts of big banks, and protect consumers. Under this Act, the CFTC and the SEC were charged with regulating a number of previously unregulated or under-regulated Wall Street and financial service sector activities that led in large part to the 2008 crisis, including the $700 trillion derivatives market.

While Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the reforms enacted under Dodd-Frank are clear and effective--and many may still require clarification from Congress--the bill under consideration today, H.R. 1526, is premature and potentially damaging. I therefore do not support this legislation.

Regulators at the CFTC and the SEC continue to make progress on implementing important regulations of the derivatives market. Given this progress and the fact that this is an ongoing process, intervening and micromanaging the rulemaking process at this stage would only delay the positive benefits these changes will have for Americans.

I also have concerns that this legislation sets a policy that would make it more difficult for regulators to ensure that U.S. derivatives transactions conducted overseas through foreign entities are subject to the new rules, potentially opening up a hole in the regulatory process. In requiring that the CFTC and the SEC issue a joint determination along with a formal report to Congress to establish that another country's rules are not ``broadly comparable'' to U.S. rules, this legislation creates an extra layer of bureaucracy on these already overburdened agencies that will hinder their effectiveness.

Regulating the derivatives market is a huge and important job. This legislation slows this progress without benefit to the American people or our economy.

Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the leadership and insight from my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina. Your efforts have helped keep this country safe in the midst of ongoing threats both known and unpredictable.

An essential component of these efforts is the UASI grant program, which provides financial assistance to address the unique planning, operations, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas.

As you know so well, the AUSI program is critical to helping our cities build and sustain capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism.

In my district, the Portland Urban Area has been a recipient of UASI grant funds since FY 2003. This critical funding has enhanced regional collaboration and coordination within and between responder disciplines and across jurisdictions.

The Portland Urban Area is more secure as a result, but most certainly has further to go, and must continue its partnership with the UASI program.

Problematically, Portland is no longer a recipient of UASI funding, with little notice that would have allowed proper planning for alternative methods to meet their security needs, and with little transparency as to why this is the case.

The FY 2012 program funded the top 31 highest risk urban areas in the country. And while the FY 2013 appropriations bill funds the program at a nearly equal level than the year before, unfortunately it also contains language that limits use of the UASI funds to no more than the top 25 highest risk urban areas, a cap which seems arbitrary and not based in risk or threat data.

This cap is having a significant impact. Important regional areas like Portland, Orlando, Las Vegas and New Orleans have been eliminated from FY13 funding despite being national centers of tourism and commerce.

Under no circumstances are Portland and the other affected cities any less vulnerable to terrorism than they were 12 months ago.

And in the last 12 months, the Portland Urban Area has gone from a ranking of 23 11 months ago, 29 one month ago, and 27 weeks ago. How can a city plan with such drastic changes in ranking, with little notice? Clearly the metrics used by DHS are flawed, or at the very least, are not adapted to operate within a 25-city cap.

The federal government has a responsibility to be a partner with our local communities, protecting our citizens from terrorist threats, and moderating potential impacts from natural disasters. While diminished resources are a factor for all levels of government, there should be some certainty for our communities that the federal government will be a continuing partner and when.

In the long term, I would deeply appreciate an opportunity to engage with this Committee, my Senate colleagues, and all local cities impacted, to better understand this issue, and the future of the UASI program.

And in the short term, the FY 2013 appropriations for DHS included $188 million in discretionary homeland security grant funds. The Secretary has latitude to apply these funds to previously eliminated grant programs including the UASI program.

I would urge the Secretary to use some of this funding to the jurisdictions on that have fallen below the FY13 cap. This bridge funding would greatly assist these communities to continue their anti- terrorism coordination at some level while working to achieve sustainable funding in the years to come.

There are also common-sense reforms that can strengthen the federal- local partnership for the UASI program by, for example, extending the timeline for cities to use these grant dollars. The shifting timeline from 4, to 3, and now 2 years adds another layer of difficulty to planning and utilizing these dollars as effectively and comprehensively as possible.

I sincerely appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues for taking my concerns into consideration and I look forward to addressing this issue with you in a comprehensive and thoughtful way, something you both know how to do so very well.

Mr. Speaker, we have a major piece of legislation again being considered by this Congress, the farm bill. It expired in the last Congress; and, due to significant political machinations and controversies, we couldn't get it across the finish line because it was too expensive, didn't have enough reform, shortchanged nutrition and, frankly, didn't deal with the conservation elements that Americans care about.

Well, we're at it again, and the big, contentious issues remain. The direct payments appear to be gone, subsidies that go to farmers regardless of whether or not they even farm the land; but the big, contentious issues remain.

The issues of subsidization have simply migrated. There's an effort to have a shallow-loss provision or additional crop insurance subsidies that may actually end up being far more expensive than the direct payments they're supposed to be replacing.

There is an ongoing controversy regarding nutrition. The Senate bill cuts $4 billion at a time when too many Americans are, in fact, food insecure; and food stamps, the SNAP program, plays a vital interest in communities around the country.

The House bill is even worse: $16 billion in additional cuts that families rely upon and, frankly, that provide $1.70 of economic activity for each dollar that is given to beneficiaries.

Well, there is one area that shouldn't be unduly controversial: the conservation title of the farm bill. The farm bill is the most important piece of environmental legislation that will be considered by this Congress. The question is whether it will be a good environmental bill or a poor one.

The conservation title deals with programs that are very, very important but that the private market doesn't provide, a market-based incentive for people to invest in. I'm talking about things that, if you asked the public generally, of course they are concerned about clean air, clean water, soil protection, wetland and grassland preservation.

But these are things that we've seen for the last 60 years. Unless the Federal Government steps in with either subsidy or regulation, we pay a terrible price, dating back to the monstrous soil erosion that was part of the Dust Bowl tragedy.

Here, again, we're in a situation where the conservation title is in the crosshairs. It's the conservation programs that too often have been cut when we are in need of money. They are touted when people are encouraged to vote for the bill, and then those resources dissipate. Funding is diverted to large projects. Large, confined animal feedlot operations take huge amounts of this money to deal with something that should be part of their cost of doing business and large operations that could fund it themselves. It takes away resources from small and medium-size farmers, or drains valuable wetlands.

There's a reason why only one in four of the applications for conservation programs are approved. Because there isn't enough money and too much is diverted. I've introduced H.R. 1890, the Balancing Food, Farms, and Environment Act, which seeks to change those priorities to be able to have more money available, targeted toward small and medium-size farmers and ranchers, and be able to put a premium on longer-term conservation.

We have a bizarre situation now where, because of the amazingly bloated and inefficient farm crop insurance program, people are plowing up land that previously had been in conservation, land that's going to be eroded and that's probably going to fail because it's marginal cropland but they don't care because the Federal Government is going to pay them anyway. And the taxpayer loses twice. They pay through unnecessary crop insurance subsidies and they pay because they lose the water quality, the water quantity, the protection of wildlife habitat-- and soil erosion.

By all means, let's have the political tug-of-war over unnecessary subsidization in terms of fighting nutrition, but let's come together on the conservation items, which really ought to be nonpartisan, focused, and economically productive.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we are debating legislation that is critical to the safety of all Americans. One threat that often gets underplayed but which has been catapulted into the news recently is natural disaster.

Seventy-five percent of Americans live in areas that are at risk for some type of disaster--whether flood, fire, hurricane, tornado, landslide, or earthquake. In the past 2 years, the United States experienced 25 severe, extreme weather events that caused over 1,100 fatalities, $188 billion in damages--far more than all of the domestic acts of terror in the last decade.

This legislation spends $6.2 billion on disaster relief, $5.6 billion of which is emergency spending not subject to discretionary caps.

I strongly support the role of the Federal Government in disaster response, recovery, and prevention; but the costs of disaster relief are staggering, and they are growing--whether due to stronger and more frequent storms, climate change, increased development in harm's way, or an increase in disaster declarations.

To put these costs into perspective, Congress started in 2013 by passing the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which generated $600 billion over 10 years in new revenue. Two weeks later, we passed the Superstorm Sandy supplemental, totaling $60 billion--in total, all of that first year's revenue under that proposal.

In times of budget austerity, Congress should have a full understanding of how much money taxpayers are spending on disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation. Unfortunately, these expenditures are far from transparent. There are wildly varying estimates of what these costs may be. The OMB recently estimated that the Federal Government spent an average of $11.5 billion per year from 2001 to 2011, but it included only funding specifically related to the Stafford Act and excluded the highest and lowest spending years, including $37 billion for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Another analysis found we spent $136 billion from fiscal year 2011 to 2013 on disaster relief, about $45 billion a year and nearly $400 per household per year on average. A 2005 study referenced the cost of $1 billion per week from emergency response, public and private property damages, and business disruption. This calculation was made before Hurricane Katrina.

An accurate and comprehensive accounting of Federal disaster spending, as well as an estimate of future needs, will enable this Congress and future Congresses to make better decisions about how much to budget for these events and how to prioritize scarce Federal dollars.

Accurate information would also inform the ongoing conversation about ways to reduce this spending in the first place. Spending more money up front on mitigation and community resilience can reduce the need for disaster relief expenditures. The Multihazard Mitigation Council, in a congressionally mandated study, documented that $1 spent on mitigation saved society an average of $4 in avoided disaster costs.

I appreciate language in this legislation requiring FEMA to submit an expenditure plan detailing the use of funds for disaster readiness and support. I think it's an important step forward. But, frankly, I think the reporting requirement may be too narrow.

I would request that the chairman and ranking member would work with me as this legislation moves to conference to expand the scope of the reporting requirement. We need FEMA to look comprehensively at Federal spending on disaster recovery, preparedness, and, yes, possibly prevention, and look at spending on all Federal programs, agencies and departments responding to and preparing for storms, flooding, fires, earthquake, drought and other disasters. FEMA should examine the reasons behind the rising costs and provide recommendations that may mitigate them going forward.

The inherent unpredictability of natural disasters makes exact congressional budgeting in this area very difficult, and my heart goes out to the committee and your staff. But it's clear disaster relief will continue to strain Federal budgets, particularly if the recent bout of extreme weather continues.

The first step towards finding savings will be to have an accurate accounting of these expenditures. We should take that step now in this legislation, and I would look forward to working with the committee if you're so inclined.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, since California first passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1996, 19 states and the District of Columbia have approved medical marijuana programs. In addition, voters in Washington and Colorado recently voted to allow the sale and use of recreational marijuana. Yet any business associated with these expanding industries faces a legal gray area between federal and state law. While states have expanded legal economic opportunities, federal drug, tax, and banking laws continue to limit these emerging small businesses.

It's long been recognized that marijuana has therapeutic values. People use it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis and more and more of our veterans now use it to help with PTSD. At least one million people now receive legal medical marijuana treatment.

What, however, remains illegal is for the thousands of legitimate businesses providing a legal product to treat their business expenses like every other business and deduct them from their operating income.

Decades ago, a drug dealer claimed the cost of his yacht and weapons as legitimate business expenses. Congress responded by making expenses associated with a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance ineligible for deduction. This change has since ensnared the thousands of legitimate marijuana businesses operating in compliance with state law, who are now paying a federal income tax double or triple the effective tax rate of most businesses. These businesses cannot claim the work opportunity tax credit if they hire a veteran. They cannot depreciate their American-made irrigation equipment. The deductions that any other business could take for the construction or operating costs of their facilities are unavailable to them.

This is why I am introducing the Small Business Tax Equity Act, bipartisan legislation to allow marijuana businesses operating in compliance with state law to deduct their legitimate expenses. It will only have effect in states which have legalized aspects of marijuana use.

Legal businesses in America are taxed on their income, not on their gross revenues, except for the otherwise legal operation of marijuana businesses. Our failure to update federal tax law forces these businesses to discontinue an important service, or to drive it underground, which encourages evasion. This bill conforms federal tax law to state law and ensures the fair treatment of a legal industry.

Since 1996, when California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana, the movement has spread across America. Over the last 17 years, 19 States and the District of Columbia have been pioneering therapy involving the medical use of marijuana.

It has long been recognized that marijuana had therapeutic values which were utilized with chemotherapy patients to mitigate or to stop the constant nausea. People have used it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain. There is now a wide range of therapeutic uses, from a system of multiple sclerosis to helping some of our veterans with PTSD.

A million people seek treatment that is perfectly legal under their State laws. What is not legal is for these hundreds of legitimate businesses providing a product that is important to a million people to be able to treat their business expenses like every other business and be able to deduct them from their operating income for tax purposes.

Decades ago, a drug dealer attempted to deduct the cost of his yacht and his weapons as a business expense. Congress, understandably, responded in 1982 by making expenses associated with dealing in a controlled substance ineligible for a deduction. That fixed the drug dealer, but it is has now ensnared hundreds of legitimate businesses operating under State law, by the way, laws usually approved by a vote of the people. As a result, they cannot now deduct entirely legitimate business operating expenses; they cannot claim the work opportunity tax credit if they hire a veteran; and they cannot depreciate their American-made irrigation equipment. The deduction for the construction or operating costs of a facility that they may want to revitalize is not allowed. As a result, these small businesses end up paying an effective tax rate that is double or triple the 15 percent to 30 percent that would normally be associated with the profits on most businesses. Their effective tax rates often are 60 percent to 75 percent.

Washington and Colorado are about to begin operation of businesses for the recreational adult use of marijuana authorized by their voters last fall. The situation is thus to become more complex and a burden even greater for more emerging small businesses.

We don't have to penalize hundreds of legitimate small businesses across the country to deal with a drug dealer. I'm introducing bipartisan legislation, the Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2013. Any business under this act that operates under State law would be able to deduct legitimate expenses for their business.

We shouldn't impose punitive double, triple, or quadruple ordinary rates because Congress has not modernized either the Federal drug laws or the Tax Code. We should not force them to discontinue a vital service for a million Americans or drive it underground or, frankly, encourage evasion by punitive taxes that are unjustified or unnecessary.

Let's bring this out of the shadows and encourage these small businesses to be treated fairly. It's entirely possible that we will end up actually collecting more revenue, fostering more respect for the law, and ensuring a vital supply of medical marijuana for more than a million people who depend upon it.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Bishop for his courtesy. I also would really like to thank you, Chairman Culberson, for your excellent work on this bill. This is a massive undertaking.

One aspect here that I want to focus on is the policies. The Pentagon has set its sight on good policies. Not only do our troops benefit, but so does the American public. Nothing demonstrates this more than the recent Defense Department's Unified Facilities Criteria, UFC 2-100-01. Behind this strange-sounding title is the Pentagon's installation master planning document for over 500 installations around the world, four times the amount of space of Walmarts. This document, updated for the very first time since 1986, has the potential to positively impact every military servicemember and their families by making our military bases more welcoming, more connected, and more livable.

However, the UFC is only guidance for each branch of the military. In order for it to have a positive and transformative impact, we will need to see strong implementation guidance from each service branch. I believe this is a priority for the Department of Defense. Delay and deviation would only serve to harm or set back our military families who deserve nothing but the best.

As such, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman and ranking member to include language urging the Department of Defense to provide an assessment of the progress and barriers to the implementation of UFC 2-100-01.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Terrific. Thank you very much.

If I have time remaining, I was curious if the chairman of the subcommittee feels comfortable with working with us to make some progress on this implementation.

Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this and look forward to making this progress for our military families. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As our veterans return home from Iraq and Afghanistan after 10 years of conflict, it's critical that they're able to get the care they need and deserve. Part of that care must be greater access to complementary and alternative medicine. Unfortunately, based on conversations I've had with veterans back in my district and with practitioners of alternative medicine, and letters I've received, it's too often difficult for the veterans to utilize complementary and alternative medicine through the VA system, even though research is showing that a holistic approach to treatment, including complementary and alternative medicine, can make a significant impact. A recent survey conducted by the Samueli Institute, which

shared its findings at a Senate Veterans' Affairs hearing 2 weeks ago, demonstrated how the effectiveness of drugless self-care and integrative practices for treatment of these conditions had immediate and long-lasting impacts.

Many VA practitioners have taken note and are doing their best to integrate these practices. Many veterans are seeking out these services. Both, sadly, are encountering institutional barriers and limited availability.

Given the steadfast commitment of this committee to do all it can to increase the quality of care for our veterans, I would sincerely request the chairman and ranking member to address this issue as the bill proceeds through the process.

I would be happy to yield.

Thank you.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the hard work of the committee and the willingness to work with us, to be able to make sure our veterans have access to these services, and look forward to working with you to make it happen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do appreciate the courtesy that the chair and ranking member have evidenced. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas--we've worked not only on these issues, but he's played a critical role on another issue near and dear to my heart dealing with international water, and it's a pleasure to work again.

Those efforts have saved countless lives abroad, and today, with this amendment, it's my hope that we can partner to improve and hopefully save lives right here at home.

I helped organize, found and chair the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus. It's clear from our work that we find America standing on the precipice of discovery in neuroscience research that will lead to a higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans affected by neurological illnesses every year.

Conditions in neuroscience have already dwarfed other areas of health care expenditures, and that's before the waves of baby boomers turning 65 at a rate of 10,000 per day for another 14 years are going to drive it even further. There are more people with brain disorders than all cancers and heart problems combined; and as society ages, this number will increase exponentially as will the cost to the health care system and the economy.

But the importance of neuroscience isn't just about the numbers. It's about improving the quality of life for those affected by neurological trauma, and no one is more deserving of these breakthroughs than the returning servicemembers affected by traumatic brain injuries or posttraumatic stress disorder.

As stated by General Peter Chiarelli, now the CEO of One Mind for Research and the 32nd chief of staff of the Army, TBI and PTSD have accounted for 36 percent of the disabling injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is convinced, as I think most of us in Congress are, that we must do all we can to help our veterans because these invisible wounds have devastating and long-lasting impacts.

The amendment before the committee is identical to the one that I and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, who is my cochair of the Neuroscience Caucus, offered and had adopted in last year's MilCon-VA appropriations bill.

The amendment aims to ensure that the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can truly be termed an ``epidemic.'' The amendment does not increase or decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires that no less than $35 million of the Medical and Prosthetic Research account goes towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury so that we can expedite the cure for Active Duty personnel and veterans suffering from the effects of brain and psychological trauma incurred during their service.

The amendment, I hope, symbolizes a commitment from this Congress that, even in the midst of sequestration and tight budgets, we will not yield on this critical issue and area of funding.

In meeting with neuroscientists, I am always amazed to hear how this one

area of research often leads to positive, but unexpected, breakthroughs. For example, in researching depression, scientists found out that Prozac can help stroke victims recover motor skills more quickly.

The account, the Military and Prosthetic Research, funds many critical areas of research with direct and indirect links to PTSD, and this complementary amendment ensures that these links are made and that research is shared to everyone's benefit. It's a commitment to using resources in a way that allows one scientific inquiry to seek out other areas of impact that will lead to breakthroughs in TBI and PTSD. These items demand our special attention because their effects can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly diagnosed. Early detection and prevention prevents chaos, hardship and, indeed, in some cases, a further loss of life.

We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible as a missing limb, but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--a commitment from Congress to our servicemembers. We will continue to do all we can in developing new medicines and technology to improve the lives for those in need. I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee, and respectfully urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Farr, bringing this forward. I agree with what he said, except for one item. And that is that somehow medical marijuana is intensely controversial. What we're finding is that with the American public it's no longer really that controversial. As he said, 20 jurisdictions, 19 States and the District of Columbia, have approved medical marijuana to be available to their citizens. Over 1 million Americans are people who are legally entitled to have the qualities of medical marijuana.

It has long been recognized that it has therapeutic values. They use it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, symptoms of multiple sclerosis. There are many applications that are going to make a difference to our veterans dealing with traumatic brain injury or PTSD.

Now, it is ironic that when we are trying to have a veterans health system that deals with the total patient--and the committee just supported an amendment that I had earlier to help give them alternative therapies--that we would prohibit a VA doctor from even discussing a therapy that is perfectly legal in 20 jurisdictions.

What is the rationale here to prohibit the doctor from being able to have that conversation, forcing our veterans to go outside the system and incur additional costs? I think it is a misguided policy in the extreme.

We are in the process now where the majority of Americans think that marijuana should be legalized; and if you ask the question, ``Should we respect the decisions of States?'' that majority gets even bigger. Over 60 percent say the Federal Government ought not to interfere.

But here, the Veterans Administration is prohibited from giving candid advice to people in our system, people who could benefit, like the over 1 million legal medical marijuana patients. I think that's inappropriate. I think it's unfortunate. I think we should do everything we can to try and relieve the pain and suffering that our veterans are incurring; and if it means having a conversation with a VA doctor about something perfectly legal in their community, I think that's the least we could do.

I commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment forward, and I hope that the day will come when we provide this service to veterans who would like information about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, May is college decision time for high school seniors across the country. The excitement and joy of this decision is, increasingly, tempered by concerns about just how they are going to pay for this education. The cost of college has gone up 150 percent since 1995. In July, federal subsidized undergraduate student loan rates are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, following the expiration of a one-year extension of lower rates. I support action to create a permanent fix to hold down student loan rates.

H.R. 1911 would require that student loan interest rates change year- to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note rate. In effect, over today's rates, H.R. 1911 would increase student loans by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent, depending on the type of loan. Because interest rates on Federal student loans will be reset every year, under the Republican plan, next year's freshmen would face an interest rate on loans taken out freshman year of 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans. Those borrowing the maximum amount would pay approximately $2,000 more in interest payments under this plan during the life of those loans.

This is unacceptable in a time of rising tuition costs and growing student debt. Not only does it burden our students and bar some of them from pursuing higher education, it also burdens our economy and limits economic opportunity.

Instead, I support H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Relief Act, which extends the current lower rate. I also support H.R. 1979, the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act. This legislation, championed by Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, would allow students to take out federal student loans at the same low interest rate offered to large financial institutions. The low rate enjoyed by big banks, currently about 0.75 percent, would make college more affordable for more students.

Interest costs on student loans, however, are only part of the problem. A college education is easily one of the best investments an individual can make and as a nation, educating our young people is the best investment we can make in the future of our economy. Yet, college has become so expensive in the United States that it is far out of reach for too many students and those who do attend often find themselves saddled in a heavy debt load for years to come.

We must work to make education more accessible and affordable to all of our nation's students. H.R. 1911 runs counter to this goal and for that reason I do not support it.