Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this measure. What we are dealing with today is a smokescreen to obscure the self-inflicted crisis of confidence that has been unfolding with our friends on the other side of the aisle over the course of this last year.

Everybody knew that we would honor our debts that had already been incurred, but they fogged the issue, created doubt, pushed to the brink. And this charade today is a result of what was required to help them get off the ledge onto which they had climbed, that risk, damaging the credibility and creditworthiness of the United States.

The issue should be how we spend money. We need to change how we do business, and I think, with all due respect, there are things that we could be working on now to make some progress.

There is an opportunity to reform our tax system that is complex and unfair. We're just finding out that Mr. Romney, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, pays less in tax than probably the undocumented workers who worked in his yard.

There are opportunities to deal with carried interest, with unnecessary tax breaks that are permanent for oil and gas while important emerging technologies like wind are in a state of limbo. And the public agrees that the most fortunate among us should be paying a little more. It's only fair, they can do it, it makes a difference.

We could be working together on agricultural reform to spend less money, but target on farmers and ranchers, rather than large agribusiness.

We should accelerate the health care reforms that started out bipartisan and relatively noncontroversial that actually would help us no longer spend twice as much as other developed countries for results that aren't as good.

Instead of getting down to brass tacks, my Republican friends are playing games like this measure. Luckily the game that they are playing today won't crash the global economy, but it will further erode confidence in Congress, and it delays the day that we work together on the elements that I just described where we could get bipartisan support, change how we do business, reduce the deficit, and give the taxpayers more value for their dollars.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Some say that the House Republican leadership pulled the plug on the Senate bipartisan bill because they were afraid of their Republican Tea Party freshmen.

Perhaps.

But what is clear is that we're not being allowed by the Republican leadership to vote on the Senate bill because the Republicans are afraid of their moderates, of their independents, of their reasonable ``unhardliners.''

The measure of this Congress is that the House Republicans won't act until they are forced to as a result of self-imposed, crisis-inducing deadlines. Then if they can't get their own way on an agenda that could never be passed through regular order in both Chambers and signed by the President, they throw a tantrum. And what we're dealing with today: a legislative tantrum.

Now, I don't like the 2-month extension. It has some difficulties and uncertainties. But there would be far more uncertainty and difficulty if there were a 2-week gap or a 2-month gap where 700,000 people in early January will lose their unemployment benefits, 2 million in the next 2 months. If we simply would follow regular order, allow a vote on the Senate amendment, we could build on this glimmer of bipartisanship from the other body. Allow your Members to vote. Who knows where it could lead? We actually may be able to solve some of these long-term problems.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep America and our men and women in uniform safe, this authorization spends too much and is a missed opportunity for much needed reform.

First, however, I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith of the House Armed Services Committee for including elements of all three of my amendments in this final conference bill. One amendment lifts the veil on classified immunity for defense contractors, a practice that exposed 36 of our Oregon National Guardsmen to toxic chemicals in Iraq. The other two will help protect our troops on the battlefield and save billions of dollars through energy efficiency initiatives. Their inclusion, however, does not offset the overall authorization which fails to reflect America's priorities or our national security realities.

It is deeply unfortunate that this legislation includes the appalling detention provisions and that the bill continues to tie the President's hands by restricting his ability to transfer detainees to the United States for trial in Federal Court are appalling. Preventing the administration from closing Guantanamo only serves to bolster Al Qaeda and erode America's security. There is no excuse--even in the name of fighting terrorism--for undermining our ideals. Beyond the practical security considerations, terrorism is an assault on those ideals and we should not further erode them in response to that threat.

One thing that most of the Occupy Wall Street and majority of the Tea Party advocates agree upon is that the United States is on an unsustainable path.

The economy is still floundering. We are losing the competition with other countries in the international arena when it comes to rebuilding and renewing America's infrastructure and making advances in education. Even our health care system, improved by the Affordable Care Act, still falls short of the systems in use by most of our major European competitors.

These glaring examples of un-sustainability for our infrastructure, our education system and our health care system are all troubling. None of this, however, compares with the un-sustainability of our massive defense and security spending. U.S. defense spending is bloated and not strategically oriented. We cannot continue to spend almost as much as the rest of the world--friend and foe alike--combined. We spend 6 times as much on defense as China, and 12 times that of Russia. Our Navy is larger than the next 13 navies combined.

People who are at the front deserve our best in terms of equipment, and they and their families need to be well-cared for, not just in the field, but when they come home. Our armed forces are stressed and continue to be hobbled by the reckless actions in Iraq and further challenged by the war in Afghanistan, and need to come home. We continue to spend in Afghanistan with no clear plan for withdrawal.

Today we have a reauthorization of the defense bill that fails to lay the foundation for the dramatic changes that are needed. Scaling back our open-ended spending commitments, nuclear weapons systems that we spend more on today than during the Cold War and are far more out of proportion to what we will ever need or use, patterns of deployment, for example, with our Navy, all cry out for reform. Long overdue elements to deal with cost effectiveness and the environmental footprint, energy costs at $400 a gallon for fuel at the frontlines in Afghanistan, and tens of billions of dollars lost to inefficient air conditioning are missing.

The greatest threat to our future is losing control of our ability to make tough decisions that will enable us to sustain our military and, more importantly, to sustain the economy. In short, the NDAA ignores the big picture.

We should reject this blueprint and begin the process now of right- sizing the military, trimming our burdensome nuclear stockpiles and unnecessary programs, eliminating costly weapons programs, ending our misguided mission in Afghanistan, and moving away from a Cold War model of deployment with U.S. military bases all over Europe.

We have the most powerful military in the world and will by far even if we invest substantially less. Our problem is that the American public is being ill-served by government. We're not investing in our future, and our economy will not be able to sustain this ever- increasing military commitment, to say nothing of the demands of investing in our communities and our people, especially the young. This is another missed opportunity to set down a marker for real change, and to lead responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, The nation's fiscal footing is serious business. It is too bad, then, that so much of the conversation around funding the federal government was consumed by policy riders and petty projects championed by narrow interest groups. Congress should be investing in the foundations of American prosperity and the infrastructure that supports the success of individual Americans. Rebuilding and renewing our nation's badly eroded infrastructure, strengthening our nation's healthcare system, protecting our environment, streamlining and reforming the Department of Defense, and ensuring that our financial watchdogs have the resources they need to rein in financial bad actors are all necessary investments and key obligations of our nation's government. I'm pleased that this funding package dropped many of the damaging and narrow riders that would have hurt our environment, women, and our diplomatic relationships, and, while I am still disappointed that Congress could not do more, this compromise marks a step forward from the terrible choices outlined in the Republican budget earlier this year.

Defense

One of the greatest areas of disappointment for me in this legislation is defense spending. This bill provides more funding for our military than nearly the rest of the world combined, and represents a missed opportunity for much needed reform. The greatest threat to our future is losing control of our ability to make tough decisions that will enable us to sustain our military and, more importantly, to sustain the economy. Wasteful weapons programs that continue to arm us for the Cold War, unsustainable deployment strategies, and the tragic ongoing funding for an unwinnable war in Afghanistan could have been addressed. Sadly, this bill fails to set down a marker for real change, and forfeits and opportunity to lead responsibly.

Education

I am pleased that this bill protects the Pell Grant program and maintains the current $4,860 maximum. In addition, the small increases in IDEA and Title I funding, while far less than what are necessary, are a significant improvement compared to earlier Republican proposals. While many of the programs are facing cuts, I appreciate the continued funding for the Arts in Education program, as well as the programs that support teacher development and special education.

Environment and Energy

With regard to environment and energy, this bill could have been worse. I'm pleased that many of the most egregious riders were removed from the Interior-Environment and Energy and Water titles. It is inappropriate to use the appropriations process to make policy and score political points. I am strongly opposed to the legislative riders that remain, including language that would stop the Department of Energy from enforcing new efficiency standards for light bulbs. These standards stemmed from a non-controversial and bi-partisan initiative in 2005 and this rider is sadly indicative of how partisan and politically-motivated the legislative process has become.

I am also extremely disappointed in the funding levels for important environmental and public health protections. The Environmental Protection Agency suffers an almost 20 percent cut, including significant reductions for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and climate and air research programs that are used by states. These reductions undermine the Federal partnership with local communities and will make it more difficult to clean the air and water and protect important public lands.

While overall I am concerned about the funding levels for the Environmental Protection Agency, I am pleased that the Committee maintained funding for EPA's Office of Smart Growth, part of the Interagency Partnership between HUD, DOT and EPA. The funds allocated to the Office of Smart Growth and the Interagency Partnership recognize the model that the Partnership presents. At a time of dwindling government funds, we need to ensure that our programs are working in concert, that we reduce red tape when possible, and that we are encouraging communities to use federal dollars to address multiple areas: economic development, public health, transportation planning, environmental protection, affordable housing and community planning. I am pleased that the Committee has recognized the importance of the Office of Smart Growth and its associated offices at HUD and DOT.

With bipartisan support including that of President George W. Bush, Congress amended the Lacey Act--which bars trade in illegal wildlife products--in 2008 to include a ban on illegally harvested wood. These amendments have helped U.S. businesses compete on a level playing field, saved over $1 billion annually, and protected thousands of U.S. jobs. Crucial to continuing these successes comes from investing in the enforcement of this law. I am happy to see $200 million for enforcement, but it's my belief that we ought to be making a greater investment.

Financial Services

Excessive risk-taking by banks coupled with lax regulations contributed to the financial crisis that devastated millions of families. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to give federal regulatory agencies the tools they need to protect consumers and the global financial system. This bill increases the resources of the Securities Exchange Commission by 8 percent, which will aid enforcement and implementation of Dodd-Frank. Despite some improvements, I retain significant concerns with the legislation. I urge my colleagues to continue buttressing the budgets of critical agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to ensure adequate policing of financial markets and limit the risk of another global financial collapse.

Public Broadcasting

The omnibus legislation takes a refreshing break from partisan politics when it comes to making a critical investment in our public broadcasting system. After a long year of fighting hard to protect funding and to depoliticize this issue, I am extremely pleased to see $445 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, the advanced appropriation for CPB, Fiscal Year 2013 funding untouched, and flat-level funding for Ready to Learn, a program which brings award- winning educational content into underserved classrooms.

Unexploded Ordnance

As the founder and co-chairman of the Unexploded Ordnance, UXO, Caucus, which aims to raise awareness in Congress of the heath, safety, and environmental risks of UXO and the challenges faced by communities and the federal government to clean up UXO on former military sites, I am very pleased to see our government willing to lead by example and invest in necessary environmental cleanup. For too long, former military bases are left littered with dangerous, unexploded munitions and toxic chemicals. The government has a responsibility to clean up theses sites and return the land to the local community so it can put it to use and boost their economy.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

Water is essential to just about every kind of development assistance. If developing countries don't have access to clean water or adequate sanitation facilities, it doesn't matter how many schools we build or vaccines we pass out. Those investments are wasted because children can't learn if they have to stay home to collect water, or can't ingest retroviral medications because of waterborne disease. Water must be a priority in any development discussion, and I extremely pleased to see this legislation do just that by setting aside $315 million to provide greater access for the world's poorest.

It is vital that Congress renew its focus on investing in the infrastructure that underpins America's growth. I reluctantly support this legislation but I urge my colleagues to redouble their efforts to renew and rebuild America.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to support funding our Nation's disaster relief programs for an additional year. However, I remain unsatisfied by the work Congress has engaged in this year regarding our Nation's budgeting for disaster. The funding we included this year for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers is significant, but it is likely that the cost of next year's disasters outstrip even those significant sums.

Worldwide, disasters last year caused a record $350 billion in damage, much of it not covered by insurance. In the U.S., two storms alone--the tornadoes of April and May--in the Southeast cost more than $14 billion. These losses were absorbed by those who suffer from the disaster, by insurers, and by Federal agencies. In the end, the taxpayers are on the hook to protect our communities, to aid those who have lost loved ones, homes, and possessions, and to rebuild what is lost. The amount we have appropriated this year will be insufficient to accommodate these tasks in the year ahead; when the money runs out, Congress will have to take action in an emergency setting to ensure an adequate Federal response.

What is needed is not merely an increase in these budgets. Congress must find the time and resources to focus on prevention, and to strengthen the programs that minimize this

damage when inevitable storms and disasters befall us. Our emergency response should be robust, but our preventative efforts should be irreproachable and I urge my colleague to help prevent the next disaster, not merely respond to it.

Madam Speaker, James Surowiecki outdid himself in the current issue of The New Yorker's financial page as he contrasted the decision of American Airlines to take bankruptcy versus the expectation of American business for how homeowners should behave. It wasn't that American Airlines couldn't pay its bills with its $4 billion in cash. It's just that it would be in a stronger position if it took advantage of the bankruptcy laws, where working with a bankruptcy judge, it could restructure union contracts, pension plans, and bank loans to its advantage.

For example, it's perfectly acceptable and legal for a judge to reset the current value of an asset and to permit loans with higher interest rates to be set at lower current market rate. Unfair as it may seem to people who made the loans, it was part of the principle of bankruptcy, to allow people to not be mired hopelessly in debt but to start again under existing market conditions. It's part of what keeps our economy vital, keeping people not tethered to mistakes of the past or bad luck, even if those mistakes were self-inflicted.

Contrast this with what business expects from the 25 percent of homeowners whose mortgages are underwater, where the financial institutions have argued about the responsibility of homeowners to avoid the stigma of defaulting, that it was their duty and obligation to pay, even if it was financially irrational and extraordinarily difficult. He pointed out that the Mortgage Bankers Association, at the same time it was exhorting homeowners to hang in there and keep paying their loans even if their mortgage was underwater, that it walked away from a loan on its headquarters, sticking the lender with a $34 million loss on a short sale.

But he missed the real outrage: The expectation where homeowners, under bankruptcy, simply cannot do what American Airlines and other American businesses can do. Homeowners under law cannot take bankruptcy and have a judge reset the loan value of their residence to conform to what the current value is and to reduce the interest rates to reflect today's record low rates. That would have been the onerous ``cram-down provision'' so vigorously resisted by banks and financial institutions when we were discussing bankruptcy reform. Do as we say, not as we do.

As a result, we have what I think is truly an insane situation where a speculator could buy six units in a condominium building and have a bankruptcy judge reduce the loan's amount and interest rate on each one of the speculator's six units, but the poor soul who bought his unit just to live in it cannot have that same privilege.

If there was bankruptcy equality for homeowners, I don't think we ever would have had the financial bubble in the first place. You can bet that the masters of the universe that poured billions of dollars into securitized mortgage instruments would have been more careful if they knew that homeowners would have been treated the same way as businesses and could have had onerous provisions modified under bankruptcy.

This is one of the reasons why the Occupy Wall Street people are so outraged, this dual standard, telling homeowners to stay the course while large businesses don't, fighting for change of the law under the guise of reform which made it impossible for homeowners to be treated as well as speculators.

If some of our friends on Wall Street are perplexed about the frustration and the outrage, they might look in the mirror. Maybe, just maybe, this is something that the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party advocates can agree upon.

Mr. Speaker, as America prepares for the holiday season, it is important to pause and reflect on what we can do for others as well as ourselves. I hope that Congress will give a gift of life, health and hope by helping people around the world with something that most Americans take for granted: safe drinking water.

Nearly 900 million of the world's poorest don't have clean drinking water, and fully 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation. This shortfall poses a significant challenge for development and security around the world, reinforcing a cycle of poverty and instability that represents both a humanitarian disaster and a national security threat.

Water-related diseases are particularly brutal in how they target children: 90% of all deaths caused by diarrheal diseases are children under 5 years of age, mostly in developing countries. In all, 1.8 million children under the age of 5 die every year, more than from AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. The economic impacts are devastating: inadequate sanitation in India alone costs that country $53.8 billion, or 6.4 percent of its GDP every year.

What's more, dirty water directly affects every area of development. Children cannot attend school if they are sick from dirty water, and adults suffering from water-borne illnesses overwhelm hospitals and cannot go to work. Hours spent looking for and collecting clean water mean hours not spent adding to a family's economic well-being. In short, the best intentioned efforts at development fail if the basic necessity of clean water is not met.

In this period of good tidings, there is good news with water. The solution to this problem is cheap and relatively straightforward. We don't have to spend millions searching for a cure. Sometimes something as simple as teaching the value of hand washing, or providing access to technology we already have is all it takes to save millions of lives and increase economic development. What we lack is leadership and accountability.

It's time for Congress to act again. The Water for the World Act of 2012 builds on current U.S. efforts to provide those in need with greater access to clean water and sanitation. And in this period of tight budgets, it is important that the Water for the World Act doesn't ask for any increase in funding, but rather improves the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of international aid programs. Given the strains on federal resources and the depth of need, it is essential that we are able to target our efforts more efficiently.

The Water for the World Act also gives the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development the tools needed to leverage the investments they are already making by elevating the current positions within the State Department and USAID to coordinate the diplomatic policy of the U.S. on global freshwater issues and to implement country-specific water strategies.

There is nothing more fundamental to the human condition and global health than access to clean water and sanitation. More needs to be done, and it needs to be done well. Taxpayers are rightly demanding better results and greater transparency from foreign aid. This bill provides the tools and incentives to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, this statement is submitted as an extension of my remarks on the House floor, December 13, 2011, discussing H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011:

I thank my friend from California, the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for discussing Section 601(c) of the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 with me.

Despite his helpful words, I still have strong reservations about language used in this legislation.

Specifically with the language in Section 601(c) of this bill, which states that:

``No person employed with the United States Government may

contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that

is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated

with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of

Iran; and presents a threat to the United States or is

affiliated with terrorist organizations.''

As most of my colleagues would agree, the whole of the Iranian government is itself a ``threat'' to the United States. Further, Iran actively supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both listed as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department. It would be strange logic indeed to disassociate any of the officials who work for Iran from a ``threat'' to the U.S. It would appear impossible to comply with this language.

Given the inability to comply with this language, this leaves the waiver provision by the President as the only means to initiating contact with Iran. Diplomacy tied to a 15-day countdown is ineffective at best and extremely dangerous at worst. Luckily, this restriction on the Executive Power to conduct the country's foreign policy is likely unconstitutional. This waiver is, on its face, questionable, unnecessarily ties the hands of our President, and is poor policy.

Congress would be better served in these challenging times to do its own job, rather than making it harder for the President to do his.

One thing that most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the majority of the Tea Party advocates agree upon is that the United States is not on a sustainable path.

The economy is still floundering. We are in too many cases losing the competition to other countries in things like building, maintaining our infrastructure for the future and in keeping up with the advances of education. We have the world's most expensive health care system that leaves too many people without coverage and provides the Nation overall with mediocre results.

Americans get sick more often, take longer to get well, and die sooner than most of our European competitors; and half that cost is loaded on the backs of the employers and embedded in the prices of their products.

But perhaps the most glaring example of unsustainability is not our health care system or our tax system; it is the massive defense and security spending with escalating costs, which is, sadly, not strategically oriented.

We cannot continue to spend almost as much as the rest of the world, friend and foe alike, combined. Our military was stressed, and continues to be hobbled by the reckless action in Iraq and further challenged by the war in Afghanistan. Yet we have a defense reauthorization that we will be considering on the floor today that ignores the big picture, does not lay the foundation for a dramatic scaling back of open-ended spending commitments, especially in dealing with issues like a nuclear weapons system far more expensive and out of proportion to what we will ever need or use. There are patterns of deployment that cry out for reform.

There are long overdue elements to deal with cost-effectiveness and the environmental footprint. Energy costs of $400 a gallon for fuel to the front, billions of dollars just for air-conditioning are symbols of a system that is not sustainable. We need key improvements. Unfortunately, we're on a path of trying to do more than we can or that we should do.

The greatest threat to our future is losing control of our ability to sustain the military because we can't sustain the economy. Unlike the past, we feel now that we don't have enough money to train and educate our next generation. It is a problem now that American infrastructure is not keeping pace with the demands of our communities, let alone the global economy.

We should reject this blueprint. We should begin the process now of right-sizing the military, of getting rid of the burdensome nuclear overreach and patterns from the past--spending on things that would help us with the Cold War or World War II, maybe even do a slightly better job on the misguided mission in Iraq--but not the most pressing challenges for American security in this century.

We have the most powerful military in the world and will, by far, even if we invest substantially less. Our problem is that the American public is being ill-served by a government that is not investing in our future and in an economy that will not be able to sustain ever- increasing military commitments, to say nothing of the demands of investing in our communities and our people, especially the young.

I was, from the beginning, appalled at the burden we were asking of our young men and women to bear when we put them in the reckless Iraq adventure. People who are in the front deserve our best in terms of equipment and facilities. They and their families need to be well cared for, not just in the field but when they come home. We can do this, even in difficult times, if we get our priorities right. And we can get our priorities straight and the job done with less money.

The cuts initiated by Secretary Gates and the Obama administration, plus what would be required by sequestration, would only bring our defense establishment to the level of 2007, adjusted for inflation. There is no question that over the next 10 years, we can manage that transition and that we will have to do it. What is sad is that the bill we will be considering today doesn't make the progress we need to get us there.

As America prepares for the holiday season and the new year, it is important to pause to reflect on our good fortune and, on this season of goodwill, what we can do for others. I hope that Congress will give the gift of life, hope, and economic prosperity to people around the world, a gift most Americans take for granted: safe water.

Almost a billion people around the globe lack access to safe drinking water, and over 2\1/2\ billion don't have access to adequate sanitation. This is why the number one health challenge is water- related disease.

Half the people who are sick today anywhere on this planet are sick unnecessarily from waterborne diseases that are particularly brutal on their impact on children. Ninety percent of the deaths caused are children under 5. The 1.8 million lives that are lost are more than AIDS, TB, and malaria combined.

It's also a major cause of the struggle for economic security. For example, in India, the estimate is over $50 billion a year, more than 6 percent of its economy, is lost due to inadequate water and sanitation. How does this happen? Children cannot attend school if they are sick from unsafe drinking water. People with illnesses overwhelm the few hospitals and clinics and they can't go to work. Hours spent looking for and carrying clean water, usually by girls and women, means that they're not adding either to education or the economic well-being of their families.

Historically, water's been a source of conflict, and with over 260 river basins that cross country borders, managing this very finite resource without conflict will be one of the world's greatest security problems.

In this season of good tidings, there is good news about water. The solutions are cheap and easy. We're not required to search for a cure. Helping people understand the need to wash their hands or providing them with simple, commonsense technology is key.

Churches, parishes, and synagogues have already taken up this challenge, and hundreds of thousands of people have benefited. It's time for Congress to act.

In 2005, the bipartisan Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act helped us get our act together. Now we have new legislation, Water for the World, which will be introduced tomorrow with my colleague and friend, Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, the chief Republican cosponsor. It builds on current United States efforts--not by increasing funds. Make no mistake, I hope some day we do increase the investment around the globe. But right now, this legislation will increase aid effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Given the strains on Federal resources and the depth of the need, it is essential that we target our efforts as efficiently as possible.

The Water for the World Act gives the State Department and USAID tools to leverage investments. It helps elevate positions within the agency to coordinate diplomatic policy and implement country-specific water strategies.

The House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, under the leadership of Kay Granger and Nita Lowey, has done the best it can in this difficult budget climate with resources for poor people with water around the world. Now Congress needs to step up to make sure these precious resources are used as effectively as possible.

I sincerely hope my colleagues will join Congressman Poe and me in cosponsoring the Water for the World Act and then work to enact it as soon as possible.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

A year ago, our Republican friends talked about reforming the process so that we wouldn't have legislation that was in a ``must-pass'' category that was laden with items that were unrelated or unnecessarily complicated. Well, here we are, less than a year after they adopted their rules, and we have legislation that is just that. Unemployment insurance has always been, I think, in times of economic stress, when benefits are threatened to expire, must-pass legislation. If you ask the American public, being able to keep $1,000 or more in the pockets of the average family, by keeping the payroll tax reduction, that would be must-pass legislation. And the SGR, the sustainable growth rate problem, to avoid a draconian cut in physician reimbursement--which I mercifully say I did not support when it was proposed by my Republican friends and enacted into law some 15 years ago--that is certainly must- pass legislation.

And here we have a hodgepodge of jamming all of these together, plus--wait a minute--the Keystone pipeline, a variety of things that are complicated, expensive, and unfair, jammed together in a must-pass legislative situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to draconian cuts in benefit levels. In a State like mine, it's going to be very hard on rural and small-town America, where those extended benefits make a big difference. The jobs aren't there. Now you may force some of these people who don't have a high school education to start a training program, which you are not willing to pay for.

You are going to impose very significant cuts on hospitals. For example, the evaluation and management cap is going to impact dramatically hospitals that a number of us represent. It is going to scale up much higher costs for senior citizens who don't think they're high-income.

With all due respect, I think it's the wrong approach to serious problems that we face. We ought to deal with them one at a time in a balanced and thoughtful way, reject this Christmas tree, and do it right.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the bill. We will postulate that Iran has been a terrible actor and that having nuclear weapons is a threat to international stability and something that we should resist.

I am concerned about the legislation that is before us being potentially counterproductive in two areas. It's not something that we ought to be coming forward with here at 8:15 at night on the unanimous consent calendar. There are legitimate issues here, and there is controversy. My friend from California said, well, there may be disruptions in the oil markets. Well, I think of what has motivated people in terms of their concern about what has happened; according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, new sanctions could raise the price of gas in the United States by a dollar a gallon. An article in The New York Times estimated it could cost Americans $100 billion a year. This is not inconsequential. At a time when our economy is in tough shape, when we are concerned about being able to move forward, we ought to think carefully about doing something.

Now, if it would stop nuclear weapons for Iran, it might be worth it. There's no evidence that that is the case. We look only at the failed policy with Cuba where we have had massive efforts at sanctioning Cuba, a little, tiny island off the American coast, and what we have done, most independent experts agree, is that we have propped up Castro. We have given him a reason. If we had been freely trading and interacting with the Cuban people, I think Castro would have been a thing of the past.

Being careful about what we do with Iran matters. But I'm deeply concerned about language here that would prohibit any official or unofficial capacity--having no person employed by the United States contacting in an official or unofficial capacity.

My reading of this is that it is inappropriate to tie the hands of the administration to require 15 days' notice to exercise a waiver authority. Where we have been successful in the past, for example, in defusing a real nuclear problem with Cuba, there was actual engagement with the administration. President Kennedy and others were able to work dealing with the real problem, dealing with the Soviet Union, our adversaries, people who could actually destroy us.

I am deeply concerned that we not forestall opportunities to engage in diplomacy, which needs to be a part of any reasonable sanction policy going forward trying to deal with Iran.

From my vantage point, I think we need to be careful about how we move forward dealing with sanctions policies: sanctions first, ask questions later. My hope is that we'll have an opportunity to deal with this issue with the gravity that it requires, have interaction on the floor, be careful about what we're doing going forward with the economic impacts and the fact that it may very well likely further embolden this administration, the administration of Iran. I don't think that's something that is appropriate to us.

Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that can sometimes appear to be bureaucracy at its worst. However, in my experience, regulations tend to be less stringent than necessary rather than overly strict. While I am very open to discussing how we can make regulations more effective and efficient, I am extremely disappointed with the anti-regulatory agenda of the House leadership.

Congress today considers yet another attack on our government's basic ability to enforce laws that protect public health and the environment. Every major law requires enforcement by the executive branch of government, and enforcement requires agencies to write regulations that explain and make public how that agency is going to enforce the law. The bills under consideration by the House will stop the regulatory process in its tracks. Agencies will not be able to enforce new laws or complete updates to regulations as required by existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act.

H.R. 10, the REINS Act, requires both the House and the Senate to vote on every major regulation before that regulation can be enforced, providing only seventy days to do it. This will allow either house of Congress to effectively veto any major regulation that would enforce a law already passed by Congress merely by taking no action.

H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, adds additional requirements to the regulatory process and overrides standards in existing laws that protect public health and safety. This bill would require agencies to analyze not only the direct costs of regulatory changes, but also vaguely defined indirect costs, as well as costs and benefits of potential alternative rules. The bill requires agencies in nearly every case to use the least costly rule, instead of balancing costs and benefits as required in existing laws. This standard will make it nearly impossible for an agency to regulate at all, because there is always an alternative that could be less costly, even if the public at large bears the much higher cost of less protective rules.

H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, expands the review that agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations to include an evaluation of all reasonably foreseeable ``indirect'' costs of regulations, especially to small

businesses. Virtually any proposed agency action--even a guidance document designed to help a business comply with a rule--could be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. The additional analysis would make any change to a regulation even more difficult. There are already more than 110 separate procedural requirements in the rulemaking process; additional review and analysis will not improve regulations, but merely add to delay.

These bills add additional steps on top of the current process. For major regulations the process, from writing a regulation to its enforcement, can already take four to eight years. If Congress feels at the end of that process that a regulation is inappropriate in any way, it already has the authority to vote to overturn that regulation and direct the agency to start over. These bills are unnecessary.

It's time for Congress to move beyond a debate about repealing regulations and focus instead on how to make them more effective and efficient. I strongly oppose these three bills that do not make any changes for the better, but instead jeopardize important progress on protecting health and safety.

Madam Speaker, there was a tough article in the Sunday, December 4, New York Times entitled, ``How the Food Industry Eats Your Kids' Lunch.'' This has serious consequences for the 32 million children who rely on school lunches, and often the breakfast program as well. Unfortunately, when one-third of our children of school age, 6 to 19, are overweight or obese, this matters.

There's no denying that the institutional and political forces combine to favor giving our kids unhealthy food. It doesn't just shortchange the children and their families with huge medical costs in the future from obesity, from diabetes and other problems. It also poses problems for local farmers and the local economy.

The good news is that we know how to fix this. Without help from the Federal Government--or despite the Federal Government--there are areas where the local governments are leading. In 2001, there were only six programs that were farm-to-school, providing healthy produce and fruit that found its way into the schools. There are now more than 2,300 programs involving more than 10,000 schools across the country.

On this House floor, I have referenced a pilot project that I think is a model in Abernathy School in Portland, Oregon, which I am privileged to represent, but there are dozens more in my community. There are 160 edible gardens around Oregon. California led the way with special payments that are made to local school districts to provide opportunities to purchase local fruits and vegetables. It's been followed by similar programs in D.C. and Maine.

Now, this doesn't just deal with the health of kids. It also deals with the health of local economies. When you are able to buy fresh fruits and vegetables locally and put them into the schools, it has a significant multiplier effect. Each dollar there actually has more economic impact than a dollar spent on infrastructure or a dollar that

would be spent on food stamps. It's one of the most valuable economic impact generators, almost $2 of economic impact for each dollar invested, according to a study from Ecotrust.

Let's accept the challenge to try to help improve this process. There are some additional steps that can be taken locally--don't build or remodel schools that don't have kitchens. It's simple, but it's more cost effective to do it when you're constructing or remodeling than to have to come back later.

Let's hold Members of Congress accountable. Last month, we once again on the floor of the House reaffirmed the fact that pizza dough with a little bit of tomato sauce is a vegetable. Maybe people in the course of this next year, when politicians are going to be out campaigning, may be able to pin them down on whether or not they believe pizza is a vegetable and whether they will act to override that outrage.

It's also important to expand the USDA pilot project that's going to be starting next month in Florida and Michigan. Let's see if we can give other States the opportunity for cash instead of commodities, to be able to purchase these local products. This will give opportunities for our school districts to strengthen the local partnerships; to be able to give kids healthy food; to be able to model behaviors that are important; and, most important, for the Federal Government to realign its interests away from large agribusiness and in favor of the health of our children.

Now, in the midst of the rubble of the so-called supercommittee, there was some good that came out of it. One good element was that there was not a secret sort of farm bill that was embedded that would have denied us the opportunity this year to reform farm legislation, because one of the simplest things we can do is to move payments from large agribusiness, put it in the hands of local schools, and local farmers to be able to improve the health of our children and our local economy.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sign of maturity to be able to retain two different but related concepts in your head at the same time. For instance, taxes should not be raised on the majority of working Americans while the economy is in this very difficult situation. But a little more can reasonably be paid by those who are extremely well off.

The simple fact is that our economy and our families cannot afford to take the economic hit that is poised to pull a hundred billion dollars out of the economy with the expiration of the 2 percent payroll tax holiday that's scheduled to expire this year.

There is currently a proposal that's being debated in the other body that I hope we'll have the opportunity to vote on here to be able to extend and expand the payroll tax cut and to pay for it.

Under this proposal, employees would receive a 50 percent additional cut in the payroll tax, cutting it essentially in half, and employers would have a reduction in the payroll tax that they pay on their employees up to the first $5 million of payroll. This would help 98 percent of businesses but not give unnecessary giveaways to large and profitable organizations, and, most importantly, it would prevent the typical family from suffering a significant increase in their taxes while the economy is still fragile. This proposal would give the average family $1,500 a year extra to spend. You would think that people ought to be able to corollate those two concepts.

The way that this would be financed is a small surtax on not just rich, but superrich people. These are folks who make over a million dollars a year, and they would just pay the surtax on that amount that they earn over the million dollar threshold. It's far less than the 1 percent that we are hearing argued about. They would still pay lower Bush-era tax rates on the first million, and those that have extensive investment income, which most of them do, would still benefit from those lower rates.

Unfortunately, we find people here who are caught up in an ideology that trumps concern for the economy and the typical American family. It was this refusal to consider a balanced approach that is supported by the vast majority of the public that led to the collapse of the so- called supercommittee. Americans were and are ready for action that is bold, big, balanced and fair.

Now, we actually can start on the road of recovery just by going on autopilot. The default that is set up that will let the Bush-era tax cuts expire unless Congress does something and moving towards automatic sequestration will actually solve most of the deficit problem that we face just by doing nothing.

But we can do better than nothing. We can adjust. We can craft. We can focus it to get the most benefit. And we can start with a modest adjustment.

I hope my colleagues will not let the worship of the top one-tenth of a percent of the economic pyramid trump concerns for the rest of working families and the American economy.