Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight is a very historic joint session of Congress. Indeed, it is unique in the history of our Nation.

Not because it was the first time a President's request had been refused by the Speaker. No. Or that the President's speech, in and of itself, is somehow going to be extraordinary, although we all hope that it is.

This event is historic because for the first time in two centuries, there will be no young House pages in attendance when the President takes the podium behind me. There will be no sea of young men and women in blue blazers with bright faces intent on shaking the President's hand and drinking in the ceremony and the significance of a joint session of Congress.

This is sad on so many levels, especially as a symbol of why Congress is held in such low esteem. Many here understand the cost of a program but fail to understand its value.

Dedicated staff were dismissed without notice in a decision that was announced via press release without a chance for the people who care passionately about the program to argue for its future or help pay for it. It may save a few million dollars, but we lose the opportunity to enrich thousands of lives whose influence and contributions have spread across the decades and across America, while strengthening and uplifting this institution. This is part of a disturbing trend here in Congress, devaluing youth and civic education.

Also scheduled for elimination is the Classroom Law Project sponsored ``We the People'' program and the national high school Constitution competition that takes place every year all across the country. This is at a time when our friend, the esteemed documentary producer, Ken Burns, points out that the average teenager can name eight kinds of blue jeans but can't name eight American Presidents. Yet Federal support for civic education is not on the radar screen here in Washington, D.C.

This is not really any different than the other basic infrastructure that is falling victim to reckless budget knives and congressional indifference. The young people who participate in the page program and the Classroom Law Project could easily construct a path forward for this Congress and the President.

These young people would craft a path forward that featured a balanced and fair revenue system that would raise revenue and reduce the deficit. They would accelerate health care reform, not put sand in the gears. They would right-size and redirect our military involvement, and they would reform agricultural programs to help more family farms and ranchers while saving money.

These alumni could figure it out, while those who control the levers of power in the House pursue an extreme agenda that is not what America needs or what Americans want. These young people, the pages, may not be in attendance here this evening, but their absence speaks volumes about political dysfunction and a shortsighted agenda.

I hope we will all listen to them.

My good friend from Texas is right; there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation. There was bipartisan support for the legislation when it passed in the House last December when it expired. But, unfortunately, the Senate shut down. It would not be allowed to move forward by the Republicans in the other body, and it died inexplicably. I don't understand the workings of the other body and why Republicans would require supermajorities to move things through that will ultimately pass unanimously.

There was bipartisan support for this legislation in January, in February, March, April, May, June. I am proud to support it now, and I'm pleased that the Republican leadership and my friend, Chairman Camp, brought it forward. But there's just as much support today as there was in January.

It made me feel bad that our friend from Texas talked about the $21 million that was lost to his Texas industries. It didn't need to happen. Any night that we came into session at the beginning of any week, the legislation could have come forward, since January. This is important, and I'm pleased we're having the discussion now. I will do anything I can to lobby people in the other body to move forward with it. But it's part of a simple bipartisan agenda where there's no objection. These are the sorts of things that can come forward.

In the 1960s, a growing number of nations agreed that more needed to be done to bring the benefits of trade to the developing world and devised a system of trade preferences to meet this objective. The United States enacted it first in 1974, and criteria under this System of Preferences were not merely related to trade but reflected our Nation's social values when we inaugurated this program, Preferences, in 1974 and included a statement of the policies we feel valuable in our trading partners and about which policies we feel drive the development of nations. It's often referred to as a tool of foreign policy as well as trade.

Among the criteria we judge our trading partners on in eligibility for this program are the protection of American commercial interests like the protection of intellectual property, the prevention of seizure of property belonging to United States citizens and businesses, as well as the protection of individual rights such as the protection of commonly accepted labor rights and the elimination of child labor.

I wonder at this point if I may ask a question of my friend, the chairman of the committee.

As I scanned the legislation, I don't see any reference in the elements to the protection of the environment. Is there anything in this legislation that would speak to that?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

If the gentleman would entertain an additional question. I appreciate that this has not been incorporated in the past and that this is just a simple extension over the course of the next 22 months.

As we move forward, hopefully we won't be dealing with the expiration in the future. I'm wondering if the gentleman would entertain working with us and, as we come forward in the course of a replacement, if we might consider including environmental protections in the list of accepted criteria.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and interest in at least looking at it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have done with the trade agenda in 2007 was establish environmental protections which are part of future FTAs. We've kind of turned the corner with trade agreements. And I'm hopeful that this relatively modest--and I would think noncontroversial--item could be included so that as we move forward in the future we add to our list and would benefit developing countries' respect for the environment.

Trade can have a powerful effect on environmental protection. We've worked hard to include them in previous items. And I'm hopeful that we can work together to make sure when this comes before us again that the environment is given its due protection.

For weeks now, we've faced the artificial Republican debt crisis, which was a crisis of Republican choice. And now with an agreement coming forward, we should ask the question: Is this worse than the default scare? Well, it's hardly clear. What about a government on auto pilot, locked into a slow downward spiral?

First, this empowers the most reckless and extreme elements, not just in the House Republicans today but is a blueprint for mischief for either party in the future. Next, we are starting down a path of budget cuts that all experts assure us will weaken the economy at exactly the time we need to strengthen economic growth, not reduce demand. Clearly it is a step backwards from reforming how the country does business.

The fixation on triggers, formulas, and supercommittees will make it easier for Congress to duck the difficult policy work and harder to do it, if Congress wants to try.

Even as it would appear we avoid outright default, this agreement casts a long-term shadow over our Nation's reasonableness and our reliability for the next 2 years and beyond. And remember the drama over the continuing resolution earlier this year? There are still two potential government shutdowns over the next 14 months that will invite more legislative blackmail over an extreme agenda since it's clear that recklessness works.

This is all the more frustrating because the path forward is clear. The public strongly supports a balanced approach which would include tax reform that would raise money while making the Tax Code more fair and simple.

Everyone knows we must deal with health care costs; and until recently, there was bipartisan agreement as to how to do that. We should accelerate the health care reforms which are already enacted into law but do it faster to improve care and lower costs.

Do we need to require a commission to implement bipartisan suggestions to right-size the military, both its mission and its budget? Absolutely not. There are ideas floating around and support on both sides of the aisle to do that now.

Most important, perhaps, we should revitalize the economy by rebuilding and renewing America, financed by modest increases in user fees. One of the things that is actually the most simple would be to implement bipartisan suggestions to reform agriculture, to save money while helping people who farm and people who eat by reducing massive unnecessary subsidies to large agribusiness.

This agreement delays the important work while it weakens both the economy and the decision-making process. Government on auto pilot in a slow downward spiral is not a victory.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.

Well, we are facing an artificial Republican debt crisis that was a crisis of choice, of their choice. Remember, we have repeatedly increased the debt ceiling for Republican and Democratic administrations and congresses year in and year out.

This proposal moving forward is very troubling on several levels. First, it empowers the most reckless and extreme elements, not just in the House Republican Caucus today, but it is a blueprint for mischief for either party in the future.

Next we are starting down a path of more budget cuts at a time when all the experts assure us this will weaken the economy, when, instead, we should be strengthening, dealing with economic growth, not reducing demand. It's all the more frustrating because there is a path going forward that is clear.

The public strongly supports a balanced approach, which should include tax reform that would raise money while make the Tax Code more fair and simple. Do we need a commission to implement suggestions, to right-size the military, both its mission and its budget? Absolutely not.

There are lots of ideas and support on both sides of the aisle that could be enacted to achieve this goal. But the magnitude of the trigger actually invites mischief. Again, when we have seen the Republican ``take no prisoners'' attitude, what leads anybody to believe they won't do it in this case?

Most important, we should be revitalizing the economy by rebuilding and renewing America, financed by modest increases in user fees. This has support all across the business community, labor, environment, local government, even some of my Republican friends, but they take this off the table.

And, last but not least, one of the most simple things we could do would be to implement agricultural reform to save money and help people who farm and people who eat, rather than lavish subsidies for large agribusiness. These are things that we should be doing. These are things that actually could have bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, this agreement, if it goes forward, will delay that important work of reform and fiscal responsibility while it weakens both the economy and the decisionmaking process for years to come. Government on autopilot in a slow, downward spiral is not a victory in anybody's book.

Mr. Speaker, last night we heard the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, talk about how he stuck his neck out and offered new revenues. Well, if so, then instead of chasing the most extreme few Tea Party members of his caucus to craft an even more unrealistic proposal, why doesn't he work with 193 Democrats to lead Congress to the balanced approach that Americans want? New revenue would allow for basic tax reforms, closing expensive unjustified loopholes and making the tax code more fair and simple. We could then cooperate on sensible reductions in long-term spending where there is already bipartisan agreement for agricultural reform, defense, and health care. If John Boehner was Speaker of the House instead of speaker of the Tea Party, we could start down the path of fiscal stability and end this artificial crisis.

Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives considered and rejected the proposal placed by Senate Majority Leader Reid before the Senate. While this is not remotely the solution we need, I voted in favor because this is the best the Republicans in the Senate will allow. It is imperative that Congress keep the hope alive that we will avert default on our nation's obligations. This bill is likely the last and best proposal we will see.

Speaker Boehner stated on the House Floor that he was ``sticking his neck out a mile,'' as he negotiated with the President on this issue. If he truly was sincere about this, Congress easily could have found a bipartisan solution to avoid the debt-ceiling crisis and start down a path of fiscal sustainability. I must point out that this crisis is wholly artificial and manufactured, and that the Speaker easily could have avoided it, had he chose to.

While I voted yes today, at some point there are worse outcomes. This action, and Congress's failure to find a longer-term compromise, is a looming cloud over our finances. Repeatedly facing similar self- manufactured crises will further damage the economy and family savings. The sad fact is we did not have to take this path in the first place.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Well, we are approaching the real prospect of default for the first time in American history, and we have wasted 2 days. While we have wasted 2 days, the American public has lost over $400 billion of wealth as the stock markets started to slide when Speaker Boehner walked away from negotiations with the President. The Republicans have been twisting arms to make a bill that could never pass the Senate even more objectionable by chasing a few extreme Members of their party instead of working with over 180 Democrats on a balanced approach.

I would suggest that people think of three words. First is recklessness. This is the first time in history that we have taken the debt ceiling discussion and held it hostage; 102 times we have increased the debt ceiling since 1917. This is an entirely manufactured crisis.

Second is abuse. This is an abuse of power to try and hold this debt ceiling discussion hostage, refusing to compromise, trying to avoid a balanced approach that is supported by the American public and what ultimately is going to be required to solve this problem.

The third point is hypocrisy. On this floor, earlier this week, when Republicans actually had the chance to vote for real spending cuts that would be required under their bizarre proposal for spending reductions in the future, when they had a chance to vote for it, in this Congress, offered up by the Republican Study Committee--and I think it was misguided, but at least it was honest--and what did the Republicans do? They voted it down, 104 of them, including their own subcommittee chairman, because it was too extreme.

Mr. Speaker, the elaborate Kabuki dance continues here on Capitol Hill surrounding the angst about increasing the debt ceiling. I think what we are seeing can be summarized in three words: ``recklessness,'' ``abuse,'' and ``hypocrisy.''

First of all, it is reckless for my Republican friends to hold the debt ceiling discussions hostage in an attempt to achieve other political goals. There have already been significant costs. American currency has weakened. We've watched a slide of the stock market since last Friday when the agreement blew up as Speaker Boehner walked away from his work with President Obama. We've watched premiums being paid now to ensure United States debt. People are making adjustments that are having consequences right now and eroding the confidence that we have had globally in the strength of American commitments to pay its debt--a confidence that has resulted in record low-interest rates that have benefited everybody in the United States, and that is at risk.

The irony is that there is no reason for this to occur. We have increased the debt ceiling 102 times since this unusual little law was enacted in 1917. The United States, you recall, is one of only two countries in the entire world that goes through this charade of having to vote to finance spending that we've already done.

It has always been routine. We did this routinely for President Bush. The irony is now when we are facing another adjustment in the debt ceiling, ironically most of the debt, $9.5 billion, was incurred as a direct result of the policies of the two Presidents Bush and Ronald Reagan. There is a great little chart on page A-14 in today's New York Times that outlines this.

Instead of making it routine and making whatever pontification people will do on the floor of the House, which they have done since 1917, now all of a sudden we have thrown a monkey wrench into the process. We've raised the specter of default. We're having people speculate whether there's enough money to go to August 2 or August 5. We're speculating about what debts, what bills the President will pay.

The irony is that this Republican recklessness is actually empowering the President of the United States to make decisions about whether to pay Chinese creditors or honor our obligations to senior citizens or people who do business with the United States.

Absolutely outrageous.

Wouldn't you think Congress would like to make these decisions rather than punting to the President? Well, no. In fact, the Republicans are more

than willing to punt to the President the decision about lifting the debt ceiling, even though the law that we have puts that responsibility on Congress. It's reckless and it's unnecessary.

Second, there is an abuse of power. You know, the American public overwhelmingly wants a balanced solution with a little bit of revenue increase, maybe taking some unjustified tax loopholes, not slashing budgets unilaterally. They want a balanced approach. But my Republican friends, having taken control of one Chamber, now think that they ought to be able to dictate to the other body, dictate to the President of the United States, have it their way or the highway. It's not what the American public wants. It's not what should happen in our system of democracy, where there should be some give-and-take and some compromise.

But no, what we're seeing is an unfortunate abuse of power on the part of some people who are willing to take hostage the debt ceiling negotiation and risk economic damage to the United States, to our families, and businesses.

And third, it is a case of hypocrisy. You know, the Republican plan, the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance--and they passed it last week on the floor of the House--would require cutting spending for the government to 18 percent of the overall economy. Interesting number. Ronald Reagan never even proposed a budget that was less than 21 percent.

They're talking about draconian cuts to things that the American public relies upon--everything from food safety to infrastructure to education. But when the time came to vote for it, this week, they voted ``no'' on an amendment that would have implemented that type of cut.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal that is brought to us today can be characterized by three words: reckless, hypocritical, and abusive.

It's reckless because for the first time in history we're having people play an elaborate game of fiscal chicken, threatening the full faith and credit of the United States for their own ideological agenda; 102 times we have increased the debt limit since 1917, seven times for George Bush, even though he was fighting unfunded wars and proposing massive tax cuts. People are already paying the price right now as we are starting to see the stock market slide, premiums are increased for ensuring our debt, and there is doubt about where we are going forward.

It is hypocritical because the Republicans have refused to actually back up some of their fanciful rhetoric in their Cut, Cap, and Balance amendment that would require massive cuts to budgets.

Earlier this week, one of our friends from the Republican Study Committee had the temerity to offer an amendment to the bill that is being debated this week on appropriations for Interior and EPA that would have been 11 percent. And what did the Republicans do when faced with a bill that would actually make them impose the cuts that they envision? They ran away from it; 104 of them voted with responsible Democrats saying we're not going to go that way. They don't want to go that way. They're not stepping up and actually doing the cutting. They want to do it far in the future.

Last, it's abusive. We have a divided government. The American public wants a balanced solution. They welcome tax reform and modest closing of loopholes to be able to avoid massive cuts in the future and to be able to get on a path to fiscal responsibility. But the Republican minority has decided, no, it is our way or the highway even if it means threatening our fiscal future.

Reject this sham.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as somebody who has spent many, many years working in my community and around the country on the promotion of livable communities, I am

frankly mystified to see included in this bill an end to the program that provides technical assistance and guidance to communities who are looking for ways to increase economic development, plan for economic growth, and make their communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure. It is mystifying.

The EPA Office of Sustainable Communities was established to provide a resource for communities that need technical assistance to plan for economic growth, to deal with development, to account for a changing population and the demographics, to expand their economic development options, and make communities more attractive to business and local citizens.

Mr. Chairman, there are hundreds of examples from across the country about the work that the Office of Sustainable Communities has accomplished. Some of the most important projects were situations where the Office of Smart Growth has helped in brownfield redevelopment. These are very complicated problems for local communities where they help turn unusable, polluted land into land that's ready for development. This helps create housing and business opportunities and provide cities with an important foundation for planning future growth. This is precisely the sort of thing that we should be doing to help communities leverage resources and prepare for the future.

In Iowa City, Iowa, the Office of Smart Growth recently approved a grant to redo their downtown riverfront area after the 2008 flood devastated that community. With the help of EPA, they created a plan with input and support from local elected officials, business leaders, and local residents that's helped regenerate the downtown business area while preserving green space and recreational areas for families who are moving into the newly redeveloped residential buildings. Closer to my side of the continent, just picking at random, the communities of Driggs and Victor in Idaho received a Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Grant to help analyze the barriers and opportunities of infill development in support of downtown revitalization efforts. This small Federal investment helped communities take advantage of public- private partnerships and redevelopment opportunities that helped revitalize these small rural towns.

Hundreds of other communities across the country have received similar assistance under the Smart Growth Program. But these cooperative efforts would come to an end under this House legislation. The services offered by EPA's Sustainable Communities Office are in high demand. They've been able to assist only 9 percent of the communities that are interested, due to existing budget constraints.

In addition to their technical assistance work, the Office of Sustainable Communities is engaged in a partnership that we all should be supporting and encouraging between HUD, the Department of Transportation, and EPA. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities enables these three Departments to work together to ensure that Federal funds work in conjunction with each other, break down the silos that frustrate us all to ensure that the Federal funds are spent as efficiently as possible and eliminate duplicative processes.

Despite the obvious connections between housing, transportation, and land use, we all know and have been frustrated that in the past the three agencies have not always worked well together as we would like. But Secretaries Donovan, our former colleague LaHood, Administrator Jackson, and the agency have spent these last 2 years cutting down the redtape and coordinating to meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives while also cutting redtape and working to partner better with local communities. The EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities helps fill a critical need by providing assistance and support to local communities.

I find it ridiculous that at a time when this type of help is needed more than ever, when there is nary a Member of Congress who hasn't been frustrated about the lack of coordination and implementation, that the House is now considering ending critical support to communities looking for ways to jump-start their own economic recovery, looking to improve the quality of life for their communities by making the Federal Government a better partner. This is something for which there should be no geographic, regional, partisan or ideological divide. This is an outstanding program. It deserves to be supported, and I hope, as this bill works its way through the process, that we find a way to retain this valuable service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is an air of unreality here on Capitol Hill. There are some people with no experience in government, little knowledge, and less regard about the outcomes who are pontificating, lecturing, and threatening. The disconnect between the rhetoric, the reality between governance and an ideological agenda is in large part why we are in the conundrum we are in today with the debt ceiling, something that has routinely been increased year after year for decades.

It was on full display in the Republican-controlled House yesterday as we debated the Interior appropriation bill. Now remember, last week Republicans took to the floor with a so-called ``cut, cap, and balance'' proposal, which is their answer going forward with the economy. It would impose an 18 percent of GDP limit on the amount of spending that the Federal Government could employ in any one year. Now remember, that is not what we have done for years. Ronald Reagan never proposed a budget that was even as low as 21 percent of gross domestic product. So it's a dramatic reduction, more than 14 percent less than anything Ronald Reagan ever proposed.

Well, yesterday in the debate my colleague from Kansas offered an amendment, an amendment that I personally found destructive and unbalanced that would have done terrible things, singling out for elimination the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, zeroing out important resources for construction for fish and wildlife, construction and acquisition of land. It would be a 30 percent reduction in water infrastructure. Overall, it would have been an 11 percent reduction. But at least it was honest.

This is where in fact some of my Republican colleagues want to go. In fact, it is less than what they would have imposed with their proposal the week before. As I argued against the amendment on the floor, I predicted that it would fail overwhelmingly, that many Republicans would vote against it because even though they are willing to make reckless proposals disconnected from reality if the only consequences are polls and politics, when it really comes down to basics, even they don't want to impose it.

Remember what happened on the floor of the House when we were debating Republican and Democratic alternatives to the budget? The Republican Study Group offered up their proposal that went even further than my friend, Paul Ryan's. And when it was passing, we watched Republicans start to twist arms to get people to vote against it because, again, it was something they thought was great politics and theater; but if it came closer to reality, they understood that it would hurt them if the American public understood the real agenda.

Well, we are now at a very serious stage dealing with the debt ceiling. Actions matter. Too many are still acting like they're on the campaign trail or at a Tea Party rally or on a Fox TV shout-fest. There have already been negative consequences from the reckless action of holding the debt ceiling hostage--American businesses are paying more; there are threats that we're going to be paying more for interest in the international bond market.

It's past time to stop this dangerous posturing. There is enough irresponsibility displayed already, we should avoid putting the rhetoric, in effect, into a budget.

Now is the time to stop playing games on the budget deficit. We've seen this movie before. The last time the Republicans took control in 1995 there was a debate on imposing a balanced budget amendment. It failed by one vote in the Senate, and it failed with the single Republican ``no'' vote, Mark Hatfield from Oregon. Senator Hatfield, in a profile in courage, stood up and made clear that he was all in favor of balancing the budget, but not with a gimmick long into the future. He was chair of the Appropriations Committee. He invited his colleagues to make the action by reducing the budget, not playing games with gimmicks. That's what we should do today.

Mr. Speaker, due to the celebration of my daughter's wedding, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes during the week of July 18. Had I been present for the votes that week, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 602: I would have voted in favor of H.R. 33, legislation amending the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that Act.

Rollcall vote 606: I would have voted against H.R. 2560, legislation submitting a constitutional amendment to the States that would irresponsibly limited the government's ability to respond to wars, disasters, or other challenges as well as changing Congressional voting procedures that would end majority rule.

Rollcall vote 611: I would have voted against H.R. 2553, legislation that, while extending the operations of the Federal Aviation Authority, would undermine labor relations.

Rollcall vote 621: I would have voted against H.R. 1315, legislation undermining consumer protections implemented as part of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Rollcall vote 629: I would have voted against H.R. 2551, ideologically driven legislation that cuts funding for House and joint operations by $227 million (6.4 percent) from FY11 enacted levels, which is $472 million (12.4 percent) below the requested amount. These cuts risk possible layoffs and pay-cuts for legislative branch staff, which will damage Congress' ability to fulfill its Constitutional duties and responsibilities to the public. For example, the Library of Congress, which is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution and provides critical resources to Members of Congress, was severely cut to 13.7 percent below the request. I was also dismayed by the cuts to related agencies such as Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office, which provide crucial assistance and oversight to Congress. These cuts will make the Legislative Branch less effective, not more efficient.

We begin another week in political wonderland. The Dow falls 100 points at the opening bell. What is it that we should do?

Well, if we had the knowledge and problem-solving skills of average college sophomore economic students, or women in a church study group, before the week is out, we would take some simple steps.

First, we would understand that, in a divided government with real economic challenges, no one group is allowed, especially those representing a minority opinion, to have their way entirely.

Then, we would begin by repealing the silly debt ceiling limitation, a law that was enacted in 1917 when the United States was about to embark upon a borrowing binge in World War I. It was used to look like we were fiscally responsible, a charade that we have done dozens of times since.

The fact is, these are debts we've already incurred, and the United States will honor them. What sort of theatrics are we going to go through until we finally own up?

Next, we would actually deal with the twin challenges of unsustainable spending and tax cuts along with the need to restore our economy and compete in a global business environment.

In an ideal world, my Republican friends would use their opportunity over the next 10 weeks to actually show how they would control spending in a way that is possible within the political process. In fact, they would have two opportunities between now and the election to actually shut down the government, if they didn't get their way, to highlight that effort.

We would also deal with a real consensus on things like military spending. There's broad agreement across party lines. For example, why shouldn't we, more than a half century after the end of World War II, 22 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, bring those troops home from Europe? Of course we can do that, and it's a start of many things that would help us restore balance to our military spending.

Next, we can deal meaningfully with our health care costs. Many parts of the United States spend far less money for Medicaid, Medicare than the high-spending areas. We know how to do this and, in fact, those low-spending, high value areas provide better quality health care. Let's use the power of the Health Care Reform Act to accelerate those reforms and spread them around America, saving money and improving the quality of care.

Turn to the Tax Code. The American public would support a modest reasonable tax reform that would actually raise some revenue by closing unjustified tax loopholes and be able to deal with fairness and simplicity. More people would actually pay their taxes. We would have more revenue, and there would be more confidence in the system.

We should deal with our infrastructure deficit, something that doesn't get as much attention around here as it should. We have a serious deficiency in terms of basic infrastructure, transportation, sewer, water, trillions of dollars of a deficit that is building, undermining our competitiveness in a global economy. We would have modest user fees to support needed improvement, together with intelligent use of credit that would put hundreds of thousands of people to work, strengthening not just the economy, but improving our health and our global competitiveness.

We would reform agricultural spending. Those college students could figure out what the experts have told us: that we can actually provide more support for America's farmers and ranchers, improve the environment, put more resources into nutrition for our children in schools, all the time strengthening American agriculture, saving money. This isn't rocket science.

Finally, we would launch a very public American process on how to strengthen Social Security; protect that lifeline for our seniors in a way that brings people together rather than divides them. Any Rotary Club with 10 people, an Internet connection and a sheet of butcher paper could come up with one, two or three alternatives that would solve the problem over the

next 50 years and would be acceptable to the American public.

This doesn't have to be so hard. It doesn't need to risk knocking the economy into another tailspin. Done right, we can meet our real challenges in a way that puts us on a sustainable economic path. We can rebuild and renew America, and unite our country to meet our challenges ahead.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I am uncomfortable coming to the floor and having to speak against this bill. There is nobody in Congress I have more respect and affection for than the subcommittee chairman; but this bill is an example of why the Republican budget gimmick last week was a fool's errand. If ever enacted, the public would be outraged.

These critical programs of EPA are not overfunded. Just talk to anybody in your home community who is dealing with things like the revolving fund for sewer and water.

This bill is not balanced. There are opportunities where there could have been fees and charges from people who profit from the activities of this bill. But no. Instead, we are shifting costs to the public and damage to the environment. We are actually giving more money to some of the special interests that profit from these activities.

We are slashing things that matter to most Americans--the ability of the EPA to protect our families and their environment and land acquisition to protect American treasures. It's going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural and small town America where people rely on our open spaces, our public lands, our parks and recreational activities.

It shortchanges America's future.

The jihad against climate change continues from my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and it's ironic. When people can barely walk outside in Washington, D.C. and when we're dealing with drought, flood, wildfires, the extreme weather events across the country, the scientists tell

us that it's related to human activity, and this budget reduces our ability to deal with climate change and extreme weather events.

I agree that the subcommittee has a very difficult job, in part, because of the unrealistic numbers that were given to them; but sadly, if you look at the bill in its entirety, I must take gentle exception to Chairman Rogers saying we all support the core mission of EPA. Sadly, anybody who reads this bill understands that that's not the case and that it's being brought to us in a way that simply undermines that core mission that means so much to Americans, to our environment, and to our future.

I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join with my good friend from Virginia in speaking against this amendment, although I do appreciate my friend from Kansas in offering it, because this is precisely what would be required if the budget gimmick that was offered by the Republicans last week to restrict funding to 1966 levels, a budget level that was never met by Ronald Reagan, who never proposed a budget that was less than 21 percent, but this is exactly what would be required. It's why the House is going to demonstrate the schizophrenia on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle, because this amendment is going to be rejected, I predict. It will be rejected, even though that is what they would wish on the American public.

Zeroing out the resources for the National Humanities, for the NEA, things that, when push comes to shove, the American public embraces, supports, have dramatic economic impact at home, that leverage private dollars, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate it being offered. I wish that people would look at it closely because this is what is being proposed by our Republican friends in their effort going forward.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I will yield back, but I do hope people pay close attention to what is embodied here, because this is a taste of what people have in store for the American public.

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

Mr. Chairman, I take modest exception to the comments of my good friend from the State of Washington because, having read ``Wilderness Warrior'' about Teddy Roosevelt, there is no doubt that T.R. is spinning in his grave.

This Interior Environment appropriations bill represents an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Federal Government. Not only does the bill cut funding for clean air, clean water, and protection of public lands, it is polluted with anti-environmental riders. These riders have nothing to do with reducing the deficit and everything to do with undermining the role of the Federal Government in protecting our Nation's environment and public health.

This is a partisan attack on 40 years of progress to protect our health and environment. It places profit-seeking interests of large polluters over the health of the American public, privatizing the benefits while forcing the children and elderly to bear increased health care costs.

Most of all, this bill is a waste of time. In the midst of a looming debt crisis, we are engaged in a rhetorical debate about legislation that moves us backward and will never become law, either defeated in the Senate or vetoed by the President.

Republicans are risking the stability of our economy for the opportunity to demonstrate once again they are more concerned in protecting industry profits than the American people.

In the midst of a heat wave in Washington, D.C., and around the country, the bill pretends that climate change isn't happening, and even prevents the EPA from following the law and a Supreme Court decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It threatens 2 million jobs and over $363 billion of the Nation's economy that depends on the support of the programs of the Department of the Interior.

There are devastating cuts to clean water and the State revolving funds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, as is referenced, an 80 percent cut, the most dramatic reduction in 45 years. It cuts EPA's operating budget, oversight budget for offshore drilling, and will leave communities around the country struggling to provide services to their citizens and even comply with Federal laws.

In Oregon, the cuts to public lands funding will mean missed opportunities to protect special places like the Columbia River Gorge.

It will also cripple local economies. Studies have shown that for every billion dollars invested in water infrastructure, between 20,000 and 26,000 jobs are created. It cuts almost a billion dollars from the State revolving fund that helps States finance federally mandated upgrades in repairs to water and sewer systems. It will put additional pressure on already tight local budgets, as well as potentially increasing water and sewer rates. And in communities like mine, we've seen them skyrocket in recent years.

The bill rolls back lifesaving and cost-saving measures under the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws which were enacted to protect the health and environment of the American people. It should be no surprise that it is cheaper and easier to prevent toxics like mercury and arsenic from going into our air and water in the first place than trying to remove them later. The EPA studies show that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

There is no doubt why a number of public health organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all written to Congress opposing these clean air policy riders.

The policy riders in the spending bill can only be described as fulfilling a special interest wish list. From blocking clean air regulations and oversight of mining to preventing Federal action to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and to a new moratorium on listings in the Endangered Species Act, the bill countless times ignores the needs of our communities and instead implements what polluting industries have been asking for. Why are we talking about allowing new mining around the Grand Canyon?

Finally, most paradoxically, this bill restricts the funding for the EPA Office of Sustainable Communities. This is an office that provides technical assistance and guidance to local communities that wish to plan for increased economic growth and development, and account for the changes in their community and demographic impacts. This office has been in existence for over 15 years. It is an extraordinarily useful tool to help communities understand how to put the pieces together, how to coax out more value. The demand is so high for their services, they can only help 9 percent of the applicants. Now would not be the time, it would seem, to make it harder for communities who wants to encourage economic development and growth in a thoughtful and sustainable fashion.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We can and must do better for our communities.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011. This bill is merely the latest attempt by my Republican colleagues to undermine American families and consumers, joining a distressing series of efforts including stripping health insurance from children, ending Medicare, and removing protections for clean air and clean water. Congress has been in session for nearly 200 days this year and Republicans have so far failed to enact any legislation that would create jobs in America.

A year ago today, I rose in support of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to end taxpayer bailouts of big banks, to improve consumer protections, and to strengthen the rules governing the financial sector. Among the most important of these protections was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose purpose is to protect consumers from the worst abuses of the financial industry. Today, on the one year anniversary of its enactment, my Republican colleagues are trying to defang this critical agency, putting the economy at risk of the very same practices that caused the financial crisis.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is led by an independent director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It will write rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions-- banks and non-banks--offering consumer financial services or products and oversee the enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for individuals and communities. The CFPB will unify responsibilities that, prior to its creation, were spread across seven different government entities, providing consumers with an accountable and powerful advocate.

H.R. 1315 seriously weakens the CFPB and the protections it provides for our families. Some of my specific concerns include:

The legislation requires a director be in place before the CFPB can take any action. With Republican Senators committed to filibustering any nominee to head the new agency, this requirement effectively stops any action the CFPB might take, putting the financial security of families at risk;

The legislation seems motivated by a desire to deny the history of regulatory failure that contributed to the financial crisis, granting these same regulators the power to block CFPB rules; and

H.R. 1315 compromises the independence of the CFPB by expanding the Financial Stability Oversight Council's authority to set aside CFPB rules and regulations, significantly impeding the agency's ability to protect American consumers.

Professor Elizabeth Warren famously remarked that it is, ``impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street.'' H.R. 1315 badly undermines consumer protections and allows financial services companies to continue engaging in the abusive practices that put millions of families on the street and threatened the global financial system.

H.R. 1315 is deeply misguided, repudiating important protections for consumers, and I urge my colleagues in opposing this reckless bill.