Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week we recognize millions of Americans who have voluntarily joined together to meet important needs in their communities. National Community Foundations Week celebrates the generosity and shared efforts to common goals that mark the American character.

Community foundations make substantial contributions to our nation's well-being in areas such as health care and social services, education and the arts, economic development, and environmental protection. In 2010, community foundations gave an estimated $4 billion to a variety of nonprofit activities.

Directed by volunteers, community foundations provide effective leadership in communities throughout the United States, often supplementing or assisting in the coordination of public programs and other private services. They are one of the fastest-growing forms of philanthropy in the United States.

The Oregon Community Foundation exemplifies these virtues. For instance, its ``Access to Higher Education'' initiative includes a one- on-one mentoring program fostering post-high school education and a scholarship program directing millions of dollars each year to help Oregonians pursue advanced education. The Oregon Community Foundation also addresses needs like literacy on the North Coast, children's dental health in South Willamette Valley and community school programs in Central Oregon.

Please join me in recognizing National Community Foundation Week, and in gratefully acknowledging the nation's charitable organizations as well as the concerned individuals who donate their time, talent, and resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the House passage of H. Res. 470, which ensures that the so-called ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act'' will receive a vote in the House of Representatives. This legislation is anti-democratic, anti-union, and anti-middle class.

If enacted, H.R. 3094 would allow companies to indefinitely delay workers elections, allowing companies to choose when and how workers will vote to form a union. The legislation encourages wasteful litigation and overrides the current National Labor Relations Board decision-making process, replacing it with one that will be more expensive and difficult to navigate, that will take longer to finalize, and that fails to protect the rights of workers.

Passage of H. Res. 470 once again demonstrates that the Republican majority is failing to support American workers and American families. While I am proud to have voted against H. Res. 470, I am disappointed by its passage.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment to our Constitution that purports to balance our nation's budget, but instead serves merely as an excuse for Congress to avoid the real responsibilities of governing. When the balanced budget amendment freight train was moving through Congress in 1995 and a number of people piled

on, it passed in the House overwhelmingly, but it failed in the Senate by one vote. The only Republican who voted no was Senator Mark Hatfield. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he was visited repeatedly by some of the most ardent proponents of a ``balanced budget,'' asking him for special treatment so that they might spend more money in their home states. Senator Hatfield recognized that, in his words, a vote for a balanced budget amendment is, ``not a vote for a balanced budget, it is a vote for a fig leaf.''

Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is an irresponsible approach to fiscal discipline. It does not balance the budget; instead, it would restrict the government's ability to provide for the common welfare, to respond to economic crises and natural disasters, and to invest in America. Under a balanced budget amendment, recessions would be longer and deeper because Congress would be forced to raise taxes, cut spending, or both in order to meet the constitutional mandate. This flies in the face of sound economic policy. If the balanced budget amendment were in effect today, it would throw 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate, and slash our economy by 17 percent.

It would also require devastating cuts to critical programs like Social Security, Medicare, and veteran's benefits. No program would be spared: education, job training, natural resources, environmental and financial protection, and transportation would all suffer under spending cuts. Yet a balanced budget amendment would do nothing for the corporate tax loopholes and benefits for the wealthy that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

A balanced budget amendment limits the government's response to natural disasters. This year alone, our country has experienced flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes that have taken hundreds of lives and caused billions of dollars in damage. Our communities need immediate support to help those who are injured and without a home, and to help clean up the devastation. A balanced budget amendment would tie the government's hands by requiring the slow machinery of Congress to act before relief could be given to suffering families.

A popular argument in favor of a balanced budget amendment is that families across the country must live within their means, and thus, so should Congress. But few families paid cash for their home. And few students paid cash for their college education. Families in Oregon borrow money for important investments that will build their lifetime wealth and improve the quality of their lives. Congress must be able to make similar investments to rebuild and renew America--shoring up the country's crumbling infrastructure, repairing our dilapidated schools, and creating the energy resources that will drive the future of our economy.

Balancing the budget does not require a constitutional amendment. It requires courage and compromise.

After Senator Hatfield courageously voted no on the balanced budget amendment in 1995, Congress in fact was able to move forward to rein in spending and raise an appropriate level of revenue that balanced the budget for four consecutive years. Unfortunately, when Republicans took control of Congress and the Bush administration took power, restraint was lost, our nation's wealth was given away, deficits skyrocketed, and their tax cut and spending policies drive our deficit to this day.

A balanced budget amendment is a phony solution. Instead, members of Congress must stand up and work together to provide a balance of increased revenues and sensible spending cuts. Doing otherwise merely avoids our responsibilities and is an insult to the people who sent us to represent them in Congress.

Congress seems determined to undermine recent nutrition standards proposed by the Obama administration. It's shameful that we are poised to intervene to make sure that pizza continues to count as a vegetable and that we protect the privileged status of French fries on the lunch tray.

The problem we have in front of us is the institution of vegetables has been weakened in this country, and the effort to redefine it on this vast social experiment that we have going on, redefining vegetables differently than they have ever been defined by mankind before. This effort of this vast social experiment, the early data that we see from other places harms the institution of the family, the raising of the next generation, and is harmful to the future of the Republic.

I appreciate my friend for the courtesy of permitting me to speak on this.

I am here in honor of the memory of the late, and I think great, United States Senator from Oregon, Republican Mark Hatfield.

When the balanced budget amendment freight train was moving through Congress in 1995 and a number of people piled on, it passed here overwhelmingly, but it failed in the United States Senate by one vote. The only Republican who voted ``no'' was Senator Mark Hatfield, who was chair of the Appropriations Committee. He was visited repeatedly by some of the most ardent proponents of a, quote, balanced budget amendment importuning him for special treatment.

Senator Hatfield understood that, had that balanced budget amendment been approved, it would have been an excuse for people to feel like they'd done their job and that they could go about continuing business as usual. He took a lot of heat. He, in fact, offered his resignation to Bob Dole, which would have reduced the number of Senators, and the balanced budget amendment would have passed.

But Senator Hatfield understood that that was wrong. He voted against it. It failed.

And what happened?

We were able to move forward under a Democratic administration to be able to rein in spending. We balanced the budget for 4 consecutive years. What happened was, when the Republicans took over, restraint was lost; deficits skyrocketed; and they put in place tax-cut and spending policies that drive the deficit to this day.

Reject this phony solution. Stand up. Provide a balance of increased revenues and program cuts. Don't pretend something that you're not doing and that's not enforceable as an excuse to avoid our responsibilities.

Last December, an item caught my eye in the Harper's Index: the rank of baked goods, pizza, and soda as sources of calories for American children--drum roll, please--number one, number two, number three. That's how our children get most of their calories; first from baked goods, then from pizza, then from soda. No wonder we have a national epidemic of obesity for our children with lifetime health care consequences, starting with diabetes and then heart disease. It's why the military is concerned that only one in four young people qualify for military service, with obesity being a major factor in that disqualification.

I salute First Lady Michelle Obama in her efforts to spotlight healthy eating, to help families give their children more nutritious choices. But we should start with what we are feeding the 31.6 million children in our schools. The administration has taken some small but important steps with the Federal partnership of this largest food program in the country to refine what the standards are for delivering this important service to our children.

Well, the battle has taken a new turn, where Congress is poised to intervene to make sure that pizza continues to count as a vegetable and that we protect more French fries on the tray. Overturning this simple, commonsense adjustment for rules--which food nutrition experts and child advocates strongly support--is going to be buried in the Agriculture appropriations bill coming forward. The people who defend inflicting this on our children site issues of cost, waste, and nutrition. Well, you don't need calorie-laden pizza crust to deliver nutrients, and waste is not a product of giving people healthy choices.

I invite anybody to come with me, visit Abernethy School in Portland, Oregon, where parents, students, and faculty have combined to have an innovative food program where kids grow food themselves. They prepare it. They study it. They're healthier and happier. Come to the University of Portland, where Bon Appetit, an innovative food service supplier by providing more choices and healthier choices, has cut food waste 70 percent.

But the cost argument is the most bogus. We're talking arguably about perhaps as much as 14 cents a meal, less than $1.4 billion for a year. That is less than Congress has decided that it will pay Brazilian cotton farmers because we don't have the gumption to

end illegal cotton subsidies to American farmers. We could produce $25 billion to $30 billion in savings from direct payments, usually to large agribusiness interests; or, if we stop the obscene process of giving more to crop insurance agents than to farmers, reform crop insurance, we could yield another $8 billion to $12 billion. This is entirely within our capacity. If the House goes along with this travesty, shame on us.

The need to protect our children's health has never been clearer. The costs have never been more manageable. Indeed, this will more than pay for itself in savings for lifetime costs of health care. It will damage people's health and shorten lives. The ``ketchup as vegetable'' debacle of the Reagan era will look tame and sane by comparison. I strongly urge the House to reject this ill-advised initiative.

It is a pleasure to be on the floor with my partner on this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), being able to see it finally brought to fruition. It was actually made a little better with the inclusion of these important provisions for our veterans.

I am hopeful that we will act with dispatch and approve it unanimously. But I hope we can also focus on what this chapter represents. It was something, in terms of working with the gentleman from California, moving this through Congress, that it seemed to me that there are three elements that we ought to focus on going forward.

First and foremost, that same spirit that has resulted in being able to fix and improve this legislation ought to be focused on how we rebuild and renew America. Because so many of the businesses and governments that were going to be pounded with this 3 percent withholding are struggling to deal with challenges that they face.

There are hundreds of thousands of veterans that could potentially be at work rebuilding and renewing America. We are in a precarious position in terms of our competitiveness internationally, with problems of congestion, pollution. I am hopeful that this same spirit focused here can be focused on this major effort to rebuild and renew America that can help revitalize the economy while it improves our communities.

Second, we need to take a hard look at flaws in how we score legislation. This piece of legislation that we were looking at, part of the challenge was to have some sort of offset because it was going to ``cost government money.'' Well, as a practical matter that is not the case because the CBO rules never take into account how much it would cost to implement it. And as a result of the hearings with Mr. Herger, with the small business Committee, with a whole range of sources, I am absolutely confident that it would have cost the Federal Government far more to implement it than it ever would have collected.

We need to make sure going forward we don't have these aberrations that cause us to go through these gyrations for something that on its face really is not going to yield the economic results.

Finally, I hope we can work together in the same sort of spirit, evidenced working with Mr. Herger, Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, to deal with the broader picture of how we're going to solve the long- term problems of our budget deficit and our flawed revenue system. We can reform our system, give a balanced program that both reforms and raises revenues, that changes how we do business. I'm convinced that this is within the capacity of those of us in Congress, and today's positive vote on this legislation is a little indication of how it can be done.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening sharing some observations.

It is, of course, always interesting to have shared the floor with my good friend from Iowa listening to his view of the universe, and even wincing a little bit as I hear him talk about the vilified public employees, where they don't have to work as hard and they get lots more money than the private sector.

It's interesting that most independent studies suggest that for many categories of public employees, they are not above the market. And it's sort of a fantasy land, I think, to have this disdain that was overwhelmingly rejected in Ohio when voters had a chance to put a stamp of approval on the fairly radical agenda of Governor Kasich, our former colleague here in the House of Representatives. Things, by the way, that Kasich and his fellow traveler, Governor Walker in Wisconsin, didn't talk about during the election.

But turning their guns on public employees, voters in Ohio had a chance to give their verdict. And it's interesting that they overwhelmingly repudiated this notion, the lack of value of public employees, the fact that they're slackers, laggards, and that what they do is not worthy of public support.

It wasn't the public health nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the marine, the person in the Navy that almost wrecked the economy. Many of these people are providing essential services. They are extraordinarily hardworking, and I'm happy to invite my friend from

Iowa to come meet some very hardworking public employees in Iowa and in Portland, Oregon.

I think those generalizations are really very unfortunate. It's feeding what we see in terms of the back-and-forth now. It's actually why there are people who have been motivated by the Occupy Wall Street movement.

But I'm here tonight to deal with one very specific focus that I think needs some more attention, and that has to do with the Postal Service.

You know, this is one of the areas today where people are zeroing in. You will hear some talk of folks that would feel much better if we just privatize the Postal Service, get out of the business. Let the private sector provide this service to American households and commerce and we'll all be better off.

I think it's important for us to take a step back and look at some of the facts and look at some of the consequences.

You know, the United States Postal Service has a long and storied career. It's the second oldest Federal agency. In fact, the predecessor was actually created by the Continental Congress, and Ben Franklin was the Postmaster there just as he was America's first Postmaster.

The Postal Service is one of those activities that maybe some of my colleagues on the floor kind of overlooked when they had this great ceremony of reading the Constitution early in the session, and then proceed to act as though they really aren't paying attention to the Constitution.

Well, article I, section 8, explaining the Congress' powers, one of them specifically is to establish post offices and post roads.

This was one of the unique institutions that helped bring America together, and it is still bringing America together today. It is in fact a vast and sprawling enterprise. It employs more people than the entire auto industry in the United States, what we used to call the Big Three. It's the second largest nonmilitary employer in this country. It has more installations than Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonald's put together, even though a number of them have been closed over the years.

There's a reason that we have made this investment for 235 years. There's a reason that there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated employees. There is a reason why we have the broad sweep, and that is this critical element of holding our country together.

It is a backbone of commerce. We talked today about the economy of the future. E-commerce is a large and growing area. It relies upon the Postal Service for much of its efficiency, and I will talk a little bit about that later.

It's also a tremendous resource for the American public. Before I get back to my home in Portland, I can drop my tax payment in the mail here in Washington, D.C., for 44 cents, with great confidence that that's going to arrive in a timely fashion and that my bill will be paid.

I think it's interesting to look at the large national direct mail marketing industry that involves advertising and shipping worth billions of dollars a year. Again, it is very important to a large number of Americans. In fact, some of my colleagues who would just turn the Postal Service over to provide this activity for the American public, like to UPS, like to FedEx, actually rely on the Postal Service for that last connection. There is actually an important partnership between these carriers and the Postal Service.

Now, there is no doubt that if we completely privatized, turned it over, got it out of the way that there would be some people who would benefit. People who live in very large cities and people who are big businesses that can negotiate certain types of services may actually see a little bit of rate reduction, and they may be able to tailor the service to their needs. For them, the free market may provide a modest benefit--maybe--but the more important question is:

What would happen for the rest of America, the other 99 percent, particularly rural and small town America?

Does anybody think that you would be able to send a letter from the Florida Keys to Nome, Alaska, for 44 cents if, all of a sudden, government weren't there providing that universal service? A mandate?

I don't think so.

We would also lose the personal touch that is cherished by so many. We are hearing the outcries now. I hear it in Oregon where there are dozens of communities that are being considered to lose their postal service. Every rural and small town American community will feel that bite--higher costs, less service, loss of jobs, loss of community identity, loss of connectivity.

I would urge some of my colleagues to take the time to listen to rural postmasters and letter carriers about the role that they play in these far-flung parts of America. They are an important part of the local economy. It is a place where community members gather. There are opportunities for them to be in touch with loved ones and to be in touch via the magic of e-commerce. They have far more choices and opportunities.

Before we jettison that element, I think it is important to consider how important that is to our national infrastructure--and that's what it is. It is not just, arguably, the largest source of nonmilitary, family-wage jobs in America. I don't think Walmart is necessarily the criterion that most people want for family-wage jobs, for health care and retirement benefits. There was a time when that's what most people in the middle class, if not took for granted, at least aspired to, and most of us growing up in post World War II America saw that. Even people with limited education who were willing to work hard and be able to follow through, they had that. Well, more and more the norm is that that is unusual.

I hope that we don't reach the point where we lower the standard. Two-thirds of a million family-wage jobs with decent retirement security, with decent benefits, with people who are providing an essential service is important, but it's the infrastructure that ties America together that, I think, is even more important.

Now, there are many things that are involved with the Postal Service that are hidden away that people simply don't pay any attention to.

In part, I guess I would just reference the exemplary service that is provided by most postal employees. In fact, I know a number of postal employees who are highly regarded by the people on their routes--they are recognized on their birthdays; they get Christmas presents; people look forward to them; they rely on the service; they appreciate it. Postal employees are involved with a wide range of activities in terms of helping people with their income tax reforms, food drives, checking on housebound friends and neighbors. When something is amiss, it's often a postal employee who understands it first.

I think it is important that we take a deep breath and look at the service that's provided, that we look at what difference it makes for America, that we look at what it means as an example of where we're going as a country.

I think one of the items that should be acknowledged is that this so- called crisis that we are facing is much like the summer's debt ceiling crisis in that it's manufactured--in the same way that we were always going to pay the debts that the United States had already incurred. But some people were raising doubts. They created a political firestorm. It encouraged the downgrade in the eyes of some, in one rating agency, of the United States debt. We were, in fact, going to pay our bills, but it is possible to manufacture a crisis.

The post office is facing a continuation of a theme that has plagued its existence ever since Washington decided to trap the United States Postal Service between being a business and government control-- business demands, government control. Back when the Postal Service ceased being a formal government agency, there were certain conditions that were negotiated because, for years, the post office was a government agency. The public benefit that was recognized was taken into account. There is no question that the post office provided subsidized mail service.

Some people remember the 3-cent stamp. Some people remember--I guess there aren't many people who remember now--that the Postal Service helped launch the aviation industry in this country in 1918 when airmail service began between New York City and Washington, D.C. The post office was a

part of helping create that part of our infrastructure. The post office helped with the development of the transcontinental railroad service that served cities large and small. There was a synergy that was involved there.

Then, in 1970, the Postal Reorganization Act changed the post office from being a department of the Federal Government to being an independent agency. It created a board of governors. It authorized the Postal Service to borrow from the public, and it phased out the government appropriation for operations. By 1982, that public benefit, that national connection, was entirely eliminated. There are also other items that were involved with that negotiation. At the time, there were hundreds of thousands of employees, past and current, who were part of a Federal employee retirement system and its successor system that followed on in the eighties.

Their retirement was a responsibility of the Federal Government. It had been a responsibility for the Federal Government for over 180 years.

Well, there were negotiations at that time about how much the Postal Service would have to pick up in terms of that liability, even though it was a longstanding responsibility of the Federal Government and the way the post office operated. There was a very significant payment that the new post office paid into the old retirement systems by virtue of employees who were Federal employees.

Well, you could make the argument that you want to completely privatize it and cut it loose, but that was a longstanding Federal obligation. A deal was cut; a number was picked. And it was, I think, arguably a pretty generous deal on the part of the Federal Government, on the part of Congress in terms of what they were forcing the post office to pay.

It's not unlike what has happened more recently when the post office has been required--unlike other businesses or government agencies--to prefund health payments for future employees. Tens of billions of dollars have been extracted from the Postal Service and current operations to deal with something that's going to be far in the future, something that, again, as I say, the Federal Government doesn't do; private employers don't do.

You can argue about how everybody would be better off if that happened, but it is an example of creating an artificial crisis. And these tens of billions of dollars that were extracted in the early deal or the tens of billions of dollars that are now flowing because of the 2006 act have destabilized the Postal Service at a time when it's clear that the Postal Service, itself, is stressed.

Revenues have dropped for a variety of reasons. In part, there's E- commerce. There are a number of things that we routinely now email that we would have mailed even a couple of years ago. And, of course, with the bubble bursting in the economy, its near meltdown, we have seen economic activity decline. So the post office has faced some $20 billion in lost revenue over the last 4 years; and it's something that, in fact, needs to be addressed.

But we ought to understand what the dynamic is, that by forcing the post office to prefund its future health care payment benefits for the next 75 years in an astonishing 10-year time frame was something that was calculated to stress the Postal Service, even if the economy hadn't collapsed. You know, without the provisions of that 2006 legislation, the Postal Service would be operating at a surplus, even with the challenges today.

Well, there are interesting pieces of legislation that are floating around. I must confess, I am a little partial to looking at some of the proposals that are coming forward that would help take the post office off life support and allow us to move on to addressing these larger issues. There are certain variations that Congress could have dealt with in the past, policy questions. Should it cost the same to mail a letter from here to the White House as it does from Key West to Nome, Alaska? Can we have some variability in pricing? That is a legitimate question. There may be some arguments for doing that.

But the Congress over the years has hamstrung the post office, on one hand arguing that it should not have public support, it should operate like a business; and then turning around and denying the Postal Service the flexibility that private business has in terms of setting rates, differential rates.

In terms of moving into certain product lines, in an enterprise that we value that has this vast infrastructure that is in place, hundreds of thousands of dedicated employees, over 30,000 locations, a tradition of service, and connectivity to America 6 days a week, we would think maybe give them a little opportunity to be creative. Well, what we have found is that there is very little interest in allowing them to actually operate like a business.

I do hope that my colleagues, as they look at the reform proposals that are coming forward and look at whether or not we're going to give them some flexibility to use the resources they already have and not penalize them with draconian and unrealistic requirements, take a look at what these proposals' impact will have on rural and small-town America. You know, not everybody has access to high-speed Internet that make email and reading your favorite magazine online very difficult. There are 26.2 million Americans that still lack access to broadband services, with over three-quarters of those people living in rural areas.

I mentioned that in my State of Oregon, there are over 40 post offices that are listed for possible closure. People should think about those impacts. Over half of the people in these communities are located more than 10 miles from the next nearest post office; some are as far as 33 miles away. What are the impacts of having customers drive an hour round trip to visit the nearest post office? Is that reasonable? It's a little frustrating for me that, as we have looked at some of these impacts, the attention that is paid to rural and small-town America has not been, I think, given its due.

One of the areas is the proposal of eliminating 6-day service. Let's consider how important Saturday mail delivery is for communication, marketing, and mailers, utilized by millions of citizens across the country, again, especially in rural areas. There are millions of Americans now who are using the Postal Service to deliver prescription medications, a service that relies on moving the mail 6 days a week, not lying dormant in mail processing facilities for 2, 3 days or, depending on how holidays will fall, maybe longer. It will have negative impacts on people being able to sign for packages if they're not home during the week. Think about these details.

Think about what's going to happen if you eliminate Saturday delivery for the post office. Customers are likely to see private carriers charge much higher surcharges to have them deliver that option or drive long distances to pick up their mail after renting out a private post office box for that purpose. Saturday service distinguishes the product line that we allow the Postal Service to have and I think further diminishes their ability to be more self-supporting. Of course, eliminating the 6-day service is going to eliminate 80,000 middle class jobs.

And they do so with some real question about how much of the savings is actually going to occur. The Postal Regulatory Commission was set up as part of this mechanism to establish an independent post office. They do some outstanding work. There are some really bright people. The Regulatory Commission found that the Postal Service has miscalculated the potential savings by about $1.4 billion a year when they talk about eliminating 6-day service.

They found that the Postal Service additionally failed to account for nearly half a billion in lost revenue that would come from cutting back Saturday service. And as the president of Hallmark noted in a congressional hearing last year, such reductions in service could lead to a death spiral where service reductions and a declining consumer base are self-reinforcing.

The Postal Commission found that eliminating 1 day of mail service would cause 25 percent of all first class and priority mail to be delayed, often by 2 days. This has serious consequences that ought to be, I think, examined carefully before we move forward in this direction.

This is not to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the post office should be immune. Like any business or government agency, we all, in these difficult times, in changing circumstances, need to consider new ways of doing business. And my conversations with people in the Postal Service, with men and women who work there, postal supervisors, letter carriers, the postmasters, they all have ideas. They all are interested in being part of a solution, and I hope that Congress approaches this in the same fashion.

Last but not least, part of this infrastructure that ties this together needs to be looked at in a broad context. We have all been deeply concerned about national security in the aftermath of 9/11, the anthrax situation we had here and potential pandemics where there are health crises--how are we going to deal with people quickly in times of need to get them information, to check on people, to distribute potential medicines? You know, the Postal Service with two-thirds of a million employees, a nationwide network of over 30 facilities, people who have equipment, who have know-how, knowledge of the community, the same way they help people with the right tax forms or immigration, could also be a resource in time of natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorism.

Let's think big. Let's think fairly. Let's not have an artificial crisis. Let's deal meaningfully with this critical resource that America has developed over the last 235 years, not scapegoat the employees, not scapegoat the management and have Congress be able to have it both ways, saying treat it like a business but not giving them the flexibility. I think it's time to take a deep breath, look at the resource and what it means for America, particularly rural and small town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share some observations on this important topic, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, today the House of Representatives debated a bill that combines a Coast Guard reauthorization with unrelated provisions that will hurt our environment, our economy, and maritime workers. This bill will eliminate the ability of states to protect their waters from invasive species and significantly limit the rights of injured maritime workers, the families of workers who die at sea, and workers who are wrongfully denied their earned wages. This bill puts the profits of maritime corporations above the safety of our environment, our economy, and maritime workers.

Invasive species are a major threat to our environment and our economy, costing the U.S. economy over $120 billion annually. In communities that rely on our lakes, rivers, and oceans, invasive species can decimate local economies, as they take over fisheries and damage water infrastructure. If zebra or quagga mussels were to spread from the Great Lakes to Oregon's rivers, for example, they could wreak havoc on not only our sensitive ecosystems but also cause major problems for hydropower production. These species could clog pipes and dam intakes in the Columbia River, potentially costing the Pacific Northwest $25.5 million a year to clean up. Ballast water is the primary source of invasive species into our water, as ships from around the world release water from their last port of call into our waters.

This bill will prevent states from introducing common sense controls on ballast water releases in state waters. The bill sets a low national standard, and does not allow states to choose higher protections for sensitive local waters. It also removes one of the protections we already have--a federal permit requirement under the Clean Water Act. The bill will also further undermine the Clean Water Act by restricting public participation, and opens the door to future threats to our water quality.

This bill also harms the rights of maritime workers. The bill caps the amounts workers can recover when their employer wrongfully withholds their wages, and lessens the incentive to enforce wage laws because there is less to recover. Many maritime workers, especially fisherman, are not protected by many workers' compensation laws. Their only recourse is the right to go to a court to force boat owners to pay compensation or face the loss of their fishing permit. This bill would eliminate this right, and make it easier for boat owners to avoid compensating the families of killed or injured workers. The bill also incentivizes hiring non-U.S. citizens, as it removes the requirement for cruise ships to provide the same treatment for U.S. and non-U.S. citizens in U.S. waters. This makes it cheaper to hire non-U.S. citizens, eliminating American jobs.

This bill is a bad deal for the environment, for the economy, and for U.S. workers. While I support the Coast Guard, I oppose this legislation. I urge the House to vote on a Coast Guard authorization bill without provisions that threaten our environment and our economy.

Americans are understandably frustrated by the political process. Attention has appropriately been directed to the perversion of Senate rules that slow the Senate's legislative process to a crawl with very real consequences for the ability of the Federal Government to function.

Concern has also been expressed about the House of Representatives. The health care debate revealed the deepest of divisions and some of the most inflammatory language and action in history. The budget battles of the 112th Congress, especially the artificial crisis surrounding meeting our debt ceiling obligations, extend and amplify that trend.

Experts across the political spectrum agree that part of this divisiveness arises from the very nature of congressional districts. Both parties have developed into an art form the ability to manipulate redistricting: packing in partisans of a single party, punishing opponents and protecting incumbents. Just look at the maps published in ``Roll Call'' this week, the ``Top 5 Ugliest Districts: Partisan Gerrymandering 101.'' Sadly, it's practiced by both political parties. We should all be concerned when politicians have more influence picking their voters than voters have picking their politicians.

Now, some progress has been made to insulate the redistricting process by creating a few independent commissions and some guidelines, but the problems persist. Look at what has happened in Florida to try and circumvent those reforms and, more recently, the actions of Arizona Governor Brewer firing the independent head of the supposedly independent commission. The process remains woefully inadequate, highly politicized and subject to what normal people would regard as political abuse. For many politicians, the temptation to place partisan objectives above the public interest is just too tempting. In the last decade, we saw the culmination of this trend in 2003 when Texas conducted a hyper-partisan, mid-decade, second reapportionment process.

Americans deserve better.

Congressional representation should not be a political blood sport that protects incumbents, disenfranchises legitimate interests and allows people to achieve with surgical reapportionment what they couldn't do honestly at the ballot box. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the landmark Baker vs. Carr Supreme Court case that required one person/one vote, it's time to revisit that process.

I would propose that we would establish a national commission, composed of ex-Presidents, retired Federal justices, previous congressional leaders, housed in an independent, professional agency, not unlike what Iowa has done successfully for decades. These distinguished and independent experts would establish uniform criteria and congressional district lines for each State to respect the communities of interest--the ethnic, cultural and historic boundaries-- rather than just partisan affiliation. Indeed, we may even consider competitiveness to be a positive outcome. It would then be approved by Congress with an up-or-down vote like we do with base closings. We may even fix the outrage that denies American citizens of the District of Columbia, our Nation's capital, voting representation. Congress should enact these proposals now while the abuse of the process is clear in everyone's minds--well before the next Census in 2020.

The ebb and flow of our history has shown that highly political gerrymandering can backfire, that political tides can change. Nobody knows which party is going to be in charge 10 years from now. Having a system that guarantees fairness will guard against the destructive and highly partisan maneuvering that we see now.

Americans deserve better.

When citizens are treated fairly and all politicians play by the same rules, government works better. Meaningful political reform is seldom easy. It takes time to educate the public and policymakers and to refine the concepts. I am hopeful there will be careful consideration of this proposal as a way to make the House of Representatives fair, more representative and

more effective for this century. Given the challenges we face, America deserves no less.

It's sad that we're taking time that should be spent on the economy and making communities safer and stronger to facilitate, instead, less rational and less effective gun safety laws.

I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman from New York putting The New York Times article from last Sunday in the Record. The gentleman from Florida talks about his experience. Well, in that article is sad evidence. For example, in the State of Washington where that tragic occurrence occurred, since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained gun rights. And according to the analysis provided by the State court system, of those, more than 400, about 13 percent, have subsequently committed new crimes, and more than 200 committed felonies including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape, and drive-by shooting.

The gentleman talks about evidence. Well, the study in the American Public Health Journal referenced in that article found that denying handgun purchases to felons cut the risk of their committing new gun or violent crimes by 20 to 30 percent. And another study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that handgun purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor--not a felony, a misdemeanor--were more than seven times as likely as those with no criminal record to be charged with new offenses.

I come from a State that would have its protections undermined by this proposal. Now, I think that the fact that we require character references, that people have to be 21 years of age, and that we prohibit concealed weapon carrying by dangerous criminals--those convicted of a misdemeanor such as assault, harassment, or driving while intoxicated--I think those are reasonable. That's the minimum in Oregon. And instead, the enactment of this legislation will enable a race to the bottom where the lowest common denominator will determine gun safety laws in Oregon. I think that's wrong.

I urge a rejection of the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Give Fans a Chance Act. Professional sports teams are a focal point and an important part of the identity of a community. Many of these communities have taxed themselves and provided financial incentives for stadiums, infrastructure improvements, and other enticements to team owners.

Too often the owners of sports franchises play cities off of one another to leverage even more money. In certain disdainful cases, owners have moved sports teams from cities who would and could provide the support for them to remain.

Public ownership of teams can help prevent these franchise moves and closures that occur against the wishes of a region. Unfortunately, many league rules and practices either prohibit or discourage public ownership. The ``Give Fans a Chance Act'' eliminates such rules.

The bill ties the leagues' broadcast antitrust exemption to the requirements in this bill, which eliminates league rules against public ownership and gives communities a voice in team relocation decisions.

An example of how this has worked is the story of the Green Bay Packers. The Packers were founded in 1919. In 1950, the fans saved the team from bankruptcy through a public stock offering. Since then, this team from the NFL's smallest city has seen stadium sell-outs for over 50 years and 13 NFL championships, including four Super Bowls.

Like it or not, professional sports teams have become an integral part of the fabric that makes up our communities. Since 1950, however, there have been over 50 franchise moves in the four major sports leagues. Sports team owners often instigate pitched battles between local communities over placement of teams. These communities are willing to pay millions of dollars to coax teams from one city to another, sometimes at the expense of other vital city services. Communities need more leverage in these battles.

Give Fans a Chance provides that leverage by requiring teams to listen to the community before making a relocation decision. It also gives communities an opportunity to purchase the team before they would be allowed to move to another city.

There is a drama being played out in the divorce and bankruptcy court with the McCourt family and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It's another chapter in the sad war against fans, the very people who make these multibillion-dollar enterprises possible in the first place.

It's an all-too-familiar refrain. No city is exempt from the threat of bankruptcy or being held hostage by an owner threatening to move if their demands are not met. No one, that is, except the fans of the team that is arguably the most successful franchise in

professional sports, the current Super Bowl champions, currently undefeated--and maybe the strongest team in the NFL this year--the Green Bay Packers.

Packer fans will tell you they're unique: little Green Bay, Wisconsin, with only 104,000 people, a metropolitan area of less than a third of a million, the smallest sports media market in the United States, but arguably the most successful franchise.

Green Bay is special perhaps for another reason: it's the only franchise in all of Major League sports that doesn't have to worry about some billionaire egomaniac running the franchise into the ground or being tired of it and selling it off to another city, or just the community being held hostage by obscene demands for even more revenue, more sacrifice from fans and the community.

You know, that's been the fate. About one city a year since 1950 has had a franchise change, and many others have had the screws put to them. But the Green Bay Packers, are owned by 112,158 shareholders. Each shareholder is given voting rights in the franchise, and no shareholder can hold a controlling stake in the company. The Packers can raise funds for team expenses through prudent decision-making by the board of directors and by offering public shares.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said for the approach of the long-term success of the Green Bay Packers; but, sadly, the billionaires who run the NFL and other professional sport franchises have decided otherwise. All Major Leagues, formally or informally, prohibit public ownership. The NFL formally outlawed public ownership in 1961--the same year it instituted a radical revenue-sharing policy-- but grandfathered in Green Bay. Major League Baseball outlawed public ownership through an informal resolution passed in the mid-1980s when Joan Kroc sought to donate her baseball team, the Padres, to San Diego.

Well, I think the sad record is that the billionaires are not always so brilliant; but they are long on money, political influence and ego, and they know a sweet deal when they've got it. The franchises to this point have been a ticket to even greater wealth in part because these franchises are part of a cartel that would be illegal in most other industries. Guaranteed massive profits, they're the only show in town. They often can threaten to pick up and move and of course witness some of these egregious stadium deals.

I was just in Cincinnati earlier this week; and people there, whether they're conservative, liberal, Democrats or Republicans, are still holding their heads about being saddled with an egregious contract for a recent new stadium that put all the revenue upside in the pockets of the owner.

George Steinbrenner recently passed away. He was a wealthy man to begin with from a family business, but he became a billionaire based on his Yankee empire and his ability to further enrich himself as a result, in part, of the construction of a brand new Yankee Stadium that not only cost an astronomical sum for the taxpayers of New York, but further inflated the value of his ownership of the Yankees.

There have been critical appraisals that have suggested that it would have been cheaper for New York to simply buy the New York Yankees outright for the value of the team than submit to the outrageous demands from Steinbrenner to keep them there.

Well, the gravy train is fueled by another source of revenue; not only having communities and fans over a barrel, but they have an antitrust exemption that enables them to negotiate lucrative television contracts worth billions of dollars. For instance, the current NFL contract worth $3 billion a year to go with the $6 billion that has been pried out of locals for stadium deals and parking.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to look at legislation Congresswoman Hahn and I will be introducing today. Give fans a chance. It's time to do that, to broaden the ownership options, allow democracy and the free enterprise system to work.

I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Levin, as I appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend, Mr. Herger, on moving this bill forward.

It was only a couple of months ago that we were having a press conference in the Triangle with a bipartisan group

of Members of Congress, representatives from some of the coalition members that my friend Mr. Herger referenced, to be able to focus on the need to repeal this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to mark this critical step today. It will pass on the floor of the House in a strong bipartisan vote, reaffirming the bipartisan cooperation that got us to this point. I think that this is an example of what potentially we could do because a number of the members of the coalition that Mr. Herger referenced and that he is entering into the Record are likewise people that have a vision about how Congress and the Federal Government could help rebuild and renew America.

The contractors, the engineers, and the architects that we have heard from would also like us to step up in a bipartisan manner to deal with that. There were references to people who are dealing with health care. We still face sort of a health care crisis in this country. We may be able to deal with much of it with the health care reform bill. But many of the provisions that are embedded in law now have their core as bipartisan ideas. And I hope the same bipartisan spirit could help us accelerate bipartisan reforms so that the American public benefits in the health arena as well.

You're going to hear a little spirited exchange on the floor of the House about how we pay for this legislation because it has a CBO score that's attached to it that suggests that this will raise revenue. Well, I have two observations that I think are important to note dealing with the pay-for. First and foremost, the sad fact is that this bill actually would cost more to implement than it would ever raise for the Federal Government. But we have a quirk in our scoring rules where they credit revenue. They don't deal with the cost of compliance. And this complicated piece of legislation, were it ever enacted, would require the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and up and down the Federal Government to develop mechanisms to try to implement it. It wouldn't just cost contractors, hospitals, State, and local government. It would actually cost the Federal Government far more than we would collect. I think one estimate was for the Department of Defense it would be $17 billion, which would dwarf what would be collected.

We need, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, to do a better job of thinking about the scoring rules. It's not CBO's fault, but that's how we play the game. And I find it troubling.

It also, I think, speaks volumes about how we operate in the legislative process. This was passed in 2005. It was kind of dropped in in sort of backroom negotiations. It was never part of regular order. There was no hearing before our Ways and Means Committee to talk about this because the elements that have been documented in our committee and on the floor about the unworkability of this would never have survived a regular legislative process.

Well, I'm pleased that the Democratic side has at least tried first to delay and then to fix this. I'm pleased we have worked with Mr. Herger in a bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation forward. I think Mr. Camp and Mr. Levin are committed to regular order. We've been having, I think, some very productive discussions on major issues. I hope we can keep this commitment to regular order to be able to make sure we don't have something like this in the future that has massive unintended consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this is an idea that never should have been advanced in this form. It's been a long road to try and correct it. Today, we're making an important step towards that correction, but I would add a note of caution. The same spirit of cooperation and focus that has gotten us to this point with what will be an overwhelming vote--I hope it's unanimous--we need to keep going so this isn't a casualty of the back-and-forth process between the House and the Senate. The Senate played a large role in giving us this in the first place. We need to make sure that it is not caught up in the larger dramas that occur around here, that we can keep our eye on the ball, and that we can fix it.

I do want to say just one brief word about the pay-for. As I say, it's illusory, because it would cost far more than we would ever collect, but we have to deal with the scoring rules as they are.

There are two proposals: One would tighten some eligibility for the health care reform; the other would take away some unnecessary tax benefits to large oil companies that long ago ceased to have any impact on oil exploration or reducing price. But while I actually think that the pay-for from our side of the aisle dealing with the oil tax adjustment is superior, I think as a practical matter we are going to have to do both of these in the months ahead if we're going to deal with our budget problems, reducing expenditures.

I am hopeful that we don't allow the debate over the pay-for to obscure the need to move forward. And as a practical matter, we have big challenges ahead to get our deficit under control. I think, frankly, that both of these are items that should be enacted into law, I think will be enacted into law. And while there will be a spirited discussion--and I respect the people on both sides, and I think that they will be making good points--I hope it doesn't get in the way of the big picture.

In closing, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan permitting me to speak on this, his leadership on this. I salute my friend, Mr. Herger. I hope we can mark this step today for what it is but keep our eye focused on how we deal with these larger issues going forward so we're not back in this situation in the future.

This is a special moment for American agriculture as well as an opportunity to address the major challenges America faces: our long-term government spending, our budget deficit, environmental protection, and the health problems of our families. It is also key to improving the economy, which should be our number one priority. Helping more people at less cost by reducing subsidies to large agribusiness also speaks directly to the frustrations of protesters from coast to coast, whether they are occupying Wall Street or they are Tea Party protesters.

Now, there is no doubt that America's massive investment in farm support--hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money--the special rules and regulations, and tariff protections have all contributed to the success of American agriculture. It has boosted productivity and made a difference in providing plentiful low-cost food. Left unaddressed is whether this expensive patchwork of complicated and excessive programs is the best we can do.

The answer from independent analysts is overwhelming. We can do far better for less money and help more farmers and ranchers and especially those Americans in need of food. Today, I am releasing a report entitled ``Growing Opportunities: Family Farm Values for Reforming the Farm Bill,'' which brings together that big picture and illustrates a better way.

The core principles are to reduce the flow of money to the largest agribusiness interests, which shortchanges the majority of farmers and ranchers who receive virtually no assistance from direct commodity payments, an expensive web of programs to shield farmers from market forces and, of course, the unusual program of crop insurance, which pays more to insurance agents than to farmers.

It would, instead, concentrate assistance for people who need help the most, make healthy food more affordable and give assistance to new farmers, which is so necessary to deal with the turnover in American agriculture, where the average farmer today is 55 years of age.

It would stop the inappropriate and expensive subsidization, which compromises our international trade responsibilities, which not only gives these large agribusinesses a leg up but helps them get bigger at the expense of small- and medium-sized farmers and ranchers.

It would stop the insanity of giving a billion and a half dollars to Brazilian cotton farmers over the next 10 years because we don't have the courage and the political will to stop giving support to American cotton farmers, which has been deemed illegal.

We must make the production of food, not commodities, more affordable and more nutritious for all Americans but particularly for our students, our young families, and the elderly.

Redirecting money away from incentives to pollute and paying more to farmers and ranchers to protect water quality and wildlife habitat will give real benefit to American communities, which are the neighbors of our farmers. It fits our economic and recreational

opportunities and reduces the cost of the cleanup of our waterways from animal waste, pesticides, and fertilizers. Help with research, marketing, and environmental protection will allow our farmers to be more productive and better stewards of the land while putting money in their pockets--in turn, increasing benefits and reducing costs for everybody else.

Now, I don't pretend this report contains any silver bullet. It's a collection of what I've learned in dealing with these issues in my 15 years in Congress but, more importantly, by spending a lot of time with Oregon farmers and ranchers, people in the nursery industry, the vintners, who are all shortchanged by the current system and deserve better.

Joining me in the release of this report are Representatives who advocate on behalf of the taxpayers, who deal with deficit spending, who are environmental advocates, and people who care deeply about America's farmers and ranchers. There is across this country a grand coalition that is forming and coalescing behind a unified vision for American agriculture at exactly the time when the taxpayers need it, when most farmers and ranchers deserve it and when advocates on behalf of better health and nutrition for all Americans demand it.

Executive Summary

Americans deserve a better Farm Bill. Current agricultural

policy spends too much money supporting large corporations,

doesn't adequately help the majority of small and midsize

farmers, and subsidizes manufactured food at the expense of

fruits and vegetables. This report outlines a series of

reforms to make the Farm Bill more accountable, more

affordable, and fairer to taxpayers, farmers, ranchers and

consumers alike.

Commodity Programs: The report advocates for eliminating

direct payments and storage payments, and placing limits on

counter cyclical, market assistance and ACRE payments to save

taxpayer dollars and create a more level playing field for

America's farmers.

Conservation Programs: While recognizing the important role

that conservation plays for farmers, ranchers and the public,

the report supports a shift to performance-oriented

conservation programs, giving farmers and ranchers

flexibility while ensuring that taxpayers get cleaner air and

water, and healthier soil.

Research and Development: The report acknowledges the

important role that research and development dollars have

played in boosting America's farm and ranch productivity, and

supports increasing or at a minimum keeping level research

funding.

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs: Recognizing the

importance of engaging younger Americans in farming and

ranching, the report advocates for small changes to current

programs to support beginning farmers and ranchers.

Crop Insurance: While the last negotiation of the Standard

Reinsurance Agreement made some improvements to the crop

insurance program, most economists agree that it is still in

need of reform. This report advocates for several principles

that should be used to guide the creation of any new crop

insurance agreement.

Nutrition: The report recognizes the opportunity to improve

the outcomes of nutrition programs and local farm economies

by coordinating the two. It also advocates for increased

local flexibility so that communities can take steps on their

own to increase access to fresh, local food.