Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the bipartisan ``Veterans Home Loan Improvement Act of 2011'' along with Reps. Tammy Baldwin, Brian Bilbray, Susan Davis, Peter DeFazio, Bob Filner, John Garamendi, Al Green, Sheila Jackson Lee, Kurt Schrader, Greg Walden, David Wu, and Don Young. Together we represent each of the states that would benefit from an expansion of the Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bond program.

This program was originally created after World War II to promote homeownership among our returning troops. Together, our states offer veterans mortgage loans at more favorable interest rates as a reward for their service to our Nation. As part of a comprehensive review of veterans' services in the state of Oregon, the Oregon Governor's Veterans Task Force recommended a further expansion of this highly effective program.

This Act is based on one particularly timely recommendation to expand eligibility for our state programs and bring affordable mortgages to an additional 264,000 veterans. I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of Oregon and the nation's veterans to ensure that we provide the best possible quality of care and service, and so that we can make this a true lifetime benefit for all qualified veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Superfund Reinvestment Act'' along with my colleagues Rep. Frank Pallone and Timothy Bishop. This legislation will provide resources to communities across the country to clean up hazardous waste sites and at the same time will save taxpayers more than $20 billion over 10 years.

The Superfund program was enacted in 1980 to provide money to clean up toxic waste sites where the responsible party was out of business or could not be identified. Before they expired in 1995, the money for Superfund cleanup came from taxes on the polluters themselves. However, Congress has never reauthorized the tax, making the burden of funding cleanups of toxic waste sites fall on the shoulders of taxpaying Americans. It is time to make public health, not protection for polluters, a priority.

This legislation will simply reinstate the Superfund taxes to their previous levels. This includes excise taxes of 9.7 cents per barrel on crude oil or refined oil products, excise taxes of $0.22 to $4.87 per ton on certain chemicals, and a corporate income tax of 0.12 percent on the amount of a corporation's modified alternative minimum taxable income that exceeds $2 million. The President's FY 2012 budget, which calls for reauthorization of these taxes, estimates that these fees would raise about $2 billion per year and $20.8 billion over 10 years.

Superfund sites are some of the most contaminated in the nation. 70 million Americans--including 10 million children, live within four miles of a Superfund site. They are exposed to toxic waste such as arsenic, benzene, PCBs, mercury and a range of solvents, leading to health problems such as infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia and respiratory difficulties. Communities home to these sites can face restrictions on water use and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property values decline due to contaminated land.

My community of Portland, Oregon, has been struggling to clean up one of the nation's most complex Superfund sites, the Portland Harbor site on the Willamette River. I hope that this bill to reinvest in the Superfund program will provide additional resources to the Environmental Protection Agency to keep the cleanup on track.

We have been greeted with a Republican budget that is a profoundly negative view of the future, and you've heard some of the reasons. I want to focus on just one. It doesn't just ignore the infrastructure deficit of an America that is falling apart--over $2 trillion of unmet needs as referenced by my friend from Minnesota. It makes it worse. A 31 percent cut in already inadequate funding for national infrastructure. The Progressive Budget hears the needs of the American public and actually agrees with the truckers, the U.S. Chamber, local governments, AAA of America, indeed, the deficit commission, all suggested that, for the first time since 1993, we raise the gas tax.

My Republican friends have lost track of their Republican roots, for Republicans used to believe in infrastructure. Lincoln. Eisenhower. Eisenhower raised the gas tax. Even Reagan raised the gas tax. This progressive budget is a profound investment in infrastructure. It will put millions to work renewing and rebuilding America.

I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.

The words ringing in my ears for a moment about the Democrats having increased taxes, there is this collective amnesia on the side of our Republican friends who forget that a critical part of President Obama's Recovery Act that was passed by the last Congress--42 percent of which was tax cuts or relief--included a tax cut for every working American. The kind of forgot about that.

As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, what we have done is to move forward under our initiative with something that will enable us to rebuild and renew America. What we have been given from our friends here with this alternative budget from my good friend from New Jersey which I do appreciate, this is where the Republican Party wants to go.

The Ryan budget is bad enough. It will be dead on arrival in the Senate, and will be resoundingly rejected as Americans see what is happening, taking away the retirement, health care security of Americans--230 million Americans will be returned to the tender mercies of the private insurance market. Remember, the private insurance market didn't want to insure senior citizens in an affordable fashion with comprehensive coverage; that's why we had to have Medicaid in the first place. And now the trick is to provide a voucher to insurance companies, hoping that they will step up and fill the gap. When you look at how private insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last 10 years, you see what a hollow promise this is and what a serious problem it is going to be for American families trying to plan for their future.

This is the vision that we have from our Republican friends, not only take the Republican Budget Committee, go beyond it in terms of more benefits for those who need it the least.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the continuing resolution because it reflects seriously misplaced priorities. What we are having right now is not just a budget battle; it is a fundamental debate about the direction and values of this country. Cutting nutrition aid for women and children during an economic recession is heartless. Cutting programs that not only benefit farmers but help protect the environment, wildlife, water quality, and erosion control is stupid. Reducing funding the state revolving fund that helps rebuild local sewer and water systems around the country is folly. These programs create jobs and improve the health of the community.

I also will be voting against the CR because it endorses Republican brinkmanship that encourages political ``hostage taking'' with disastrous results far in excess of any potential advantage gained. The fact that a minority of Congress feels empowered to do things to government operations that are truly irrational

destroys the credibility of this legislative body. It must stop. The only way it will stop is if the attention and resulting fury of the American public is focused on it.

This legislation represents a failure to deal with entrenched political interests at a time of heightened awareness, attention, and controversy around our budgets. We should be doing better not worse.

The next act in this sad drama--dealing with the increase of the debt ceiling, which will absolutely be approved--is already underway. The United States has no choice. Even pretending that we won't raise the debt ceiling risks consequences far more serious than the added interest costs that the U.S. would face, which would total approximately two thirds of a billion dollars a day for every percentage increase in our national debt interest rate.

We should call the question as soon as possible to attempt to rein in an ongoing political strategy that will simply move us from one crisis to the next, whether it be a future increase in the debt ceiling, expiring tax provisions, or the next budget cliff. We must stop now. The best step is to draw the line before it goes any further to increase the likelihood that people will begin to act responsibly.

The chair of the Budget Committee is a friend of mine, a man of sunny disposition, but he has helped shepherd to the floor of the House the most profoundly negative view of America's future that I have heard in my 15 years in Congress. They cannot reform Medicare, so they dismantle it for 230 million Americans who will be shifted to higher costs and given a voucher to insurance companies.

It will, in fact, according to independent analysts, increase overall health care costs for all America while it reduces some of the burden for the Federal Government. It doesn't deal with the reform of the military. It turns an opportunity for tax reform to more tax benefits for those who need it the least.

Their America and their budget cannot afford to improve our fraying infrastructure, and, in fact, envisions a massive $100 billion cut, according to the CBO. It will shortchange environmental protections and make college education more expensive for our young people.

The Democratic alternative that you will hear will provide progress with some hard decisions, but by having shared sacrifice, by not giving up on health reform but by moving forward with it, to provide infrastructure investment and educational support.

Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity, and we welcome people looking at independent appraisals of the visions of America: one which basically gives up and forces the costs on middle income, elderly, poor and children; the alternative is to invest in our future in a responsible fashion, making some hard choices, to be sure, but with the opportunity to reform areas like the military, like health care, and like the tax system.

Things that America has done in the past we think America can do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of net neutrality, I oppose H.J. Res. 37. The Internet has revolutionized the way the world learns, interacts, and does business. It has remained a dynamic and rich platform because it has been open and accessible to all, from start-up businesses, school groups, and individuals, to news organizations and government. I am using Twitter and Facebook regularly to help me keep in touch with Oregonians.

This resolution would disapprove the FCC's open Internet ruling and undermine the enforceable policy for keeping the Internet free from discrimination. Americans have the right to access to the legal content of their choice. H.J. Res. 37 denies this freedom and eliminates consumer protections in favor of corporate interests. Internet service providers would be able to act as gatekeepers, blocking legal content like Netflix and picking winners and losers among applications and services.

H.J. Res. 37 puts into question whether innovation will be allowed to flourish on the Internet. It would stifle start-up businesses and slow economic growth. Congress should protect the free and open Internet to strengthen our economy and create jobs. Instead, H.J. Res. 37 undermines these principles and puts the power to choose which content you can access in the hands of corporate interests.

Maintaining a free and open Internet is critical to a vibrant democracy and economic development. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this harmful resolution.

Madam Speaker, the realities of the Republican budget are starting to come into focus, especially health care. Vouchers to insurance companies will cost seniors and society more.

Today, Members of Congress are being inundated by visits from hospitals and health care providers who are in a panic about the Medicaid block grant that will allow the Federal Government to shift its burden for the poor and the disabled to States who often cannot or will not make up the difference in the fund loss.

Most disappointing, Republicans have abandoned the work on Medicare reform. The reform provisions in the Affordable Care Act used to be bipartisan. Instead of increasing the total cost of health care and shifting the burdens to the elderly, poor and disabled, we should be taking our medical spending--already the highest in the world--and showing how we can get more out of it.

I appreciate your leadership and your focusing on the issues that face us.

Having spent hours in the Budget Committee so far this Congress, I must admit that I was shocked and surprised with the profoundly negative approach that is being taken by my good friend, Paul Ryan, the chair of the Budget Committee and my Republican friends.

First of all, there is in essence a refusal to zero in on the three areas of greatest increase in the budget. We see repeated charts that talk about Medicare going through the roof over the next 50 years. And it is true. We need to get Medicare spending under control because the past path is not sustainable. But ironically what is ignored is that the approach that is being offered by the Republicans in their budget actually ignores the major provisions that have been placed in statute now that would actually reduce the rate of Medicare spending in the future.

We have taken every significant, independently verified promising initiative to bend that cost curve, and they have been stripped away. We watched Republicans attack Democrats because there were provisions to be able to make a difference with Medicare spending, claiming it would somehow slash Medicare for senior citizens by a half-trillion dollars. Well, Congressman Garamendi, you and I come from areas of the country that actually have been able to reduce health care costs, they are below the national average, and in both areas we actually have higher performance; better health care, less cost. If the rest of America practiced medicine the way it is practiced in our two communities, there would not be a Medicare crisis.

What we have done with the reform act was embed those notions to be able to provide incentives to reward value over volume, not just pay for procedures. To be able to have accountable care organizations, bundling of services, to actually have some financial disincentives for unnecessary hospital readmissions. All of these, the experts tell us, could save over $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. And, in fact, if we had the courage to actually improve and accelerate and enhance, there are greater savings because the doctors, the nurses, the hospitals in our two communities have proven that it is possible. But our Republican friends have simply decided to turn their back on that. They are going to take the Medicare savings and spend it for tax cuts for people who need it the least.

I can't help but turn back to you because you have an interesting chart there on the floor that may say it all.

Your point is well taken in terms of what they would do terminating Medicare as we know it for everybody under 55 years of age. We are talking about over 230 million Americans. And as a result of this, it is clear, you can look at the Congressional Budget Office, other independent experts, it is not going to reduce the cost of health care. In fact, it is going to increase the cost of health care in America. But what it does is it is going to put an ever-increasing burden on elderly Americans. It is going to have a gap because ultimately they are not going to enable people to have Medicare until they are 67. They are going to have a small voucher that is given to the insurance company. Bear in mind the reason that LBJ and the Democratic Congress in 1965 enacted Medicare was because America's elderly could not get good insurance coverage that was comprehensive and affordable. Senior citizens, like it or not, are older. They are frailer. They are less healthy than younger Americans, and they are not working as much. They don't have the income. They need help. Now, our Republican friends would lead us to believe that all of a sudden there will be a private insurance market, which by the way sounds suspiciously like the exchanges that they said were bad in the health reform act, and they would force people into them, but they would have decreasing premium support.

I think it is also appropriate to just reflect for a moment about what happens to the 78 million geezer baby boomers who are 55 or older who will be under Medicare. That's going to continue for years. It's going to be increasingly inefficient. It appears as though there are some extra costs that are embedded for existing and soon-to-be future Medicare recipients that are going to continue to distort, drive up costs, and, of course, nationally we're all going to pay more for the privilege.

I would suggest this tombstone is something that people should consider carefully, because it's going to mean, I sincerely believe, not just the death of Medicare but it is going to provide profound shifts and dislocations within our health care system, hurt the providers, and provide less effective health care for our elderly citizens.

If we could just follow up on this for a moment, because you are talking about something that ought to concern each and every citizen. Medicaid. In your State Medi-Cal. We've had the Oregon health plan. There are other States that have variations on that. It provides health care, as you say, for our most vulnerable populations: the elderly, disabled, extremely poor people.

It is very cost effective. There are complaints that the benefits under Medicaid are actually very low, and it's hard for physicians and hospitals, medical providers, to deal with this. But by moving to a block grant that, as you say, it is designed to go down over time. And unlike the current system, which is sort of countercyclical, where the Federal Government has given more money in times of distress, which it's done to your State and my State in the last 2 years. If we hadn't got the extra payments from the Federal Government to help with Medicaid, I can't imagine what shape people would have been in in Sacramento and Salem, Oregon. The legislature would have just melted down. What this proposal is, is to continue this ratcheting down, no benefits when times are tough, and put States in a situation where too often they are either unable, or in the case of some States, unwilling to react. It's going to have a cascading effect.

You mentioned the problem that's very likely to emerge with people being literally tossed out of nursing homes. This is something that Americans need to step back and look at what is being designed as part of this very pessimistic road map that is going to have very serious negative consequences.

Mr. Speaker, Congress this week will focus on the Ryan Republican budget, probably the most profoundly negative and cynical plan ever advanced by a major party in the House of Representatives.

There are lots of individual analyses that are available to Americans, not from spin masters, but from serious journalists and analysts. I strongly

hope that people will take the time to look at it. They will find in the course of their research that there are a number of very fundamental flaws.

First and foremost, there is no fundamental reform of our defense spending, something that is driving the deficit dramatically. We sidestep opportunities to reform agricultural programs. It actually takes us backwards on health care. And there are $4 trillion of program cuts over the next 10 years, falling primarily on low- and moderate- income Americans. It is a hypocritical approach.

Last year, Americans were given television ads from Republican candidates accusing Democrats of slashing Medicare for senior citizens. Now we see that the Republicans are taking all of those proposed slashes in spending and using it to finance their program to reduce taxes for those who need it the least.

In addition, people will be able to verify that senior citizens, starting in 2020, will be bearing a far greater burden for paying for their own Medicare than ever in the Affordable Care Act in any of the reforms. It replaces a steep curve of increased Medicare spending, no doubt about it. That's why in the Affordable Care Act we embedded reform proposals to bend that cost curve. It's replaced without proposals to reduce Medicare spending. It just simply slashes the support that seniors can get. It's replaced with the much greater cost curve increase for private insurance. Their approach is to give a voucher to insurance companies to provide insurance for senior citizens for health care.

Bear in mind, the reason we got Medicare in the first place is because senior citizens' insurance policies were not profitable. They couldn't buy comprehensive health insurance in an affordable fashion before Medicare. What leads anybody to believe that somehow aging Americans are going to be more attractive to the health insurance industry in the future? And by replacing Medicare, which actually has reduced cost increases below what it cost in the private health insurance company, you are actually going to increase overall health care costs.

But nowhere is that cynicism more evident than in a bill that is coming to the floor, I think tomorrow, the legislation to end the Prevention and Public Health Fund under the Affordable Care Act. Already in States like mine we've received millions of dollars for prevention activities and for wellness clinics to help people stop smoking and to improve the training of health professionals. These are investments to help make Americans healthier in the first place and reduce the demand for health care costs.

There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when prevention was a bipartisan issue. In fact, in our deliberations in the Ways and Means Committee in last Congress, people on both sides of the aisle were talking about the need to help deal with prevention programs to keep people healthy in the first place. What a sad state when one of the first actions of this Congress is to repeal this bipartisan concept of a prevention and public health fund.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the floor of the House, Steny Hoyer, Minority Whip, offered the Republicans the time, by unanimous consent, to work out the details in terms of getting the numbers right because, regardless of the pontification, it's very clear that urgent negotiations have gone forward, and the difference between the two parties is very small. This could be worked out in a day or two.

But this offer was rejected because our Republican friends are no longer interested in the money. It's about the ideological agenda, the riders, the change to policy for EPA, or dictating their ideology on the people in the District of Columbia, for instance.

It is also about a much larger agenda going forward. I spent most of Wednesday listening to the Republican budget road map that is on its way to the floor of the House. It is so extreme that before the election, when my good friend, Paul Ryan, unveiled it, very few Republicans would sign on. They knew that in the heat of an election, if people knew what Republicans had in store, they wouldn't get elected. So they were counseled, stay away.

Well, it's unveiled now. The election is held and this agenda is back with a vengeance.

I invite any American to look at independent appraisals of what's in it. There is nothing new or reforming about vouchers for health insurance companies or block granting Medicare to the States. Under this proposal, total health care costs are going to go up. But the cost to the government of the voucher is going to go down. And 230 million Americans, 55 and under, are going to pick up the tab.

Oh, and yes, they're going to keep, for 80 million Americans, Medicare that's going to be limping on in its current form. In 2050 there will be 8 million people still covered.

There are massive cuts, but not for defense. That's more or less off limits. There's talk of reform, but in the area of reform where I have worked with Paul Ryan for years, agriculture, no. We're going to leave that until reauthorization takes place.

Health care for the poor is on the chopping block. They are going to block grant aid to the States so that it can be reduced over time. Bear in mind that the cost per person for Medicaid is the lowest in this country, at a time when private health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 10 years, and overall private health care spending has gone up faster than government health care spending.

Now, in these troubled times, we should be looking at reform. In the Health Care Reform Act passed last session, we have an opportunity to actually change those health care cost curves. Every significant advance to restrain accelerated health care costs are embedded in that legislation. But rather than accelerating it, our friends want to delay it.

I strongly urge the American public to take the time to look at what's in this proposal because that's what's coming down the line, and not be distracted by the shutdown that Republicans are insisting upon.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, when making decisions on a bill referral, is the bill title a consideration?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is it true that anyone can put the word ``tax'' in the title of a bill even though it has nothing to do with taxes?

Madam Speaker, let me turn, if I could, to my good friend on the Rules Committee for purposes of yielding to a question, if he would.

I was just curious. I had an amendment before the Rules Committee. I noticed you waived germaneness on other questions. I had an amendment submitted that would simply ensure that the bill accurately accomplished what its title described. My amendment would have struck everything in the bill except the title, Energy Tax Prevention Act, and replaced it with language that actually prevented the EPA from imposing an energy tax.

Do you have any guidance as to why this amendment was not in order?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I would just note that the committee did deal with germaneness in terms of allowing things to go through from the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's unfortunate that you would not allow an amendment to at least have an accurate title before the Chamber for its debate.

It's clear that H.R. 910 has nothing do with energy taxes. The bill is designed to confuse Members of Congress and mislead the public. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I would strongly object to EPA imposing a tax on energy. But we all know that the EPA has no intention of imposing a tax on energy. Instead, this bill will overrule the scientific consensus on climate change, ignore a Supreme Court decision.

It would ignore a Supreme Court decision and endanger the future of the planet.

I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I would add, Madam Speaker, that a statement from the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that this bill has nothing to do with taxation.

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Earl Blumenauer,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Blumenauer: This letter is in response to your

request dated April 5, 2011, for an estimate of H.R. 910, the

``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' That bill limits the

ability of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency to use authority granted under the Clean Air Act to

promulgate regulations or take other actions relating to the

emission of greenhouse gases to address climate change.

While the bill does not reference anything in the Internal

Revenue Code, there are at least half a dozen places in the

Internal Revenue Code (the ``Code'') that cross reference the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act. For

example, Code section 40(b)(6)(E) defines cellulosic biofuel

in part as a liquid that meets the registration requirements

for fuels and fuel additives established by the Environmental

Protection Agency under section 211 of the Clean Air Act.

There are also additional instances in the Code that do not

reference the Clean Air Act but do require consultation with

the EPA Administrator. For example, section 45Q, which

provides a credit for carbon dioxide permanently sequestered

in secure geological storage provides that ``the Secretary,

in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary

of the Interior, shall establish regulations for determining

adequate security measures for the geological storage of

carbon dioxide . . . such that the carbon dioxide does not

escape into the atmosphere.''

Notwithstanding these and similar Code provisions that

cross reference certain Clean Air Act rules or require

consultation with the EPA Administrator, we do not think it

likely that H.R. 910 will have an effect on Federal fiscal

year budget receipts.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If we can

be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold,

Chief of Staff.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which makes a mockery of science, public health, international cooperation, the environment, the Supreme Court, and Congress.

The problems with this bill start with its title, the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act.'' The bill has nothing to do with taxes. I had an amendment to actually prevent the EPA from imposing an energy tax that the Rules Committee would not allow.

During the rules debate, my colleague Mr. Sessions from Texas indicated the committee did not because my amendment was ``not germane'', because the bill doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

Welcome to another journey down the legislative rabbit hole. Last week, the majority pretended that you didn't have to have both Chambers of Congress to enact a law. This week, we have purposely misleading bill titles.

The rule, by the way, did waive a point of order on germaneness for a provision added in committee, but the Rules Committee refused to make in order an amendment that would actually prevent energy taxes. That's because there is no threat that the EPA will impose taxes. Instead, the agency's measured and reasonable approach to update the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon pollution will reduce health and economic costs.

The tax moniker is not the only falsehood being floated about the EPA. Supporters have also claimed this bill will prevent rising gas prices. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact has rated this claim false.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. They're taking a page from Frank Luntz' approach to environmental policymaking. They don't want to have a fact-based debate about the EPA's authority to limit carbon pollution. Instead, they're working to perfect the use of poll-tested, wildly inaccurate language to attack sound science and to undermine confidence in laws that keep us safe.

I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this unfortunate piece of legislation and the tactic that is being used to advance it.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to have profound reservations about our troop commitments in Afghanistan. History suggests that we will not be successful in stabilizing Afghanistan with military force. No one has and I don't think anyone will.

I opposed the tripling of forces in the region and think that a rapid drawdown starting in July is absolutely essential. We should not, however, tie the hands of the administration and put the civilians in Afghanistan at risk by forcing a complete withdrawal of troops in 30 days. The forthcoming reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must be significant and sizeable, but must be executed in an orderly fashion.

The reasons for a timely departure are many. Afghanistan today is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, ranked next to last out of 180 by Transparency International. If you have a culture of corruption, it's hard to plant seeds of positive growth. Economic development through roads and water make the difference between people being thug and doing whatever necessary to feed their families.

The United States and international donors simply cannot afford to bankroll 70% of Afghanistan's budget and to keep spending $8 billion a month in taxpayer money. We spend in one day 20 times what the average Afghani will earn in an entire year. Yet for all that spending there is a dire need for the most basic of services. In the rural areas, 80% drink polluted water, only 10% have adequate sanitation.

It grows clearer by the day that the more heavy-handed we are and the stronger our military presence in Afghanistan, the more we unify the threats against our troops, the United States, and our allies.

Military efforts do little to address the Afghan people's grievances over their exclusion from the political process and do little for long- term stability throughout the region. We should focus on civilian efforts, working with Afghans to strengthen their ability to govern, support civil society, fight corruption, and help to rebuild their country. We cannot do this in 30 days, not even 30 weeks. That's why I oppose this resolution and instead support a significant--but thoughtful--drawdown in July.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Pesticide pollution in our waterways impairs fish habitats, threatens drinking water, and creates dead zones in our oceans. In its most recent ``National Water Quality Inventory; Report to Congress,'' the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that pesticides are the sixth leading cause of water quality impairment in estuaries. In Oregon, according to the EPA, 19 of our water bodies are considered pesticide-impaired. If ingested in drinking water at high levels, pesticides can cause a range of health problems from cancer to birth defects to kidney and liver damage to nervous system effects.

This legislation would overturn a recent court decision requiring EPA to issue Clean Water Act permits for certain pesticide discharges. It doesn't make sense to take away these tools from the EPA without replacing them with something better. The EPA has struggled to address agricultural run-off and other non-point source pollution under the Clean Water Act, and these sources will continue to be exempt from permitting requirements. But point source discharges of pesticides that leave a residue in waterways, which is the subject of this legislation, is something that the EPA can address and has now been compelled to address by a Federal appeals court. While the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires registration of pesticides and evaluation of their impact on human health and the environment, it does not involve a performance standard for specific bodies of water. In areas where pesticides have impaired water quality, I believe it makes sense to provide the EPA with tools to address that impairment.

I have heard a number of concerns from the agricultural community in my district about the specific standards being applied here as well as the increased burden of filling out paperwork. I look forward to working with stakeholders in my district to ensure the new requirements are not unreasonably burdensome. I would also support additional resources from the Federal Government to help counties, municipalities, public utilities, water districts, farmers, ranchers, and forest managers deal with any additional costs association with the permit requirements.