Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 6523 as amended, the ke Skelton Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011, because we must redefine, refocus and reign in military spending.

We have the largest defense budget in the world. We cannot continue to spend as much on defense as the next 16 countries combined. We cannot continue to spend billions to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union when both ceased to exist 2 decades ago.

Such policies are not fair to our military or to the taxpayer.

In May, I voted for an earlier version of the Defense Authorization bill because it moved closer to ending the egregious Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that discriminates against brave, qualified Americans who want to serve their country and contained positive elements that could serve as a platform for further improvement.

This bill no longer contains that repeal and further misses an opportunity to appropriately prioritize funding for our national defense. It leaves the door open for more spending on the unneeded alternative engine for the F-35 fighter, authorizes $10 billion in missile defense, a $1 billion, 11 percent, increase over last year, and it unnecessarily ties the hands of the President to deal with Guantanamo facilities.

While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep our men and women in uniform safe, the bill is too rooted in the past and the unfortunate present operation in Afghanistan, which I've opposed for scaling up, when we should have been scaling down so that we can refine and refocus on programs that will make our country safer and more secure.

A vote on this agreement may or may not be good politics, but it is wrong. It continues the Washington tradition of ducking tough issues, making suboptimal choices, and trying to make every interest group happy.

I'll be the first to admit that it contains items I support, including some I've worked hard to enact, but they're not worth the price, no matter how much I've invested in them.

This should be the time when we stopped adding to the deficit with nothing to show for it but a temporary boost to pocketbooks with a minimal boost to the economy and controversies that will continue nonstop through the next election. If, like a prudent family, we must borrow, it should not be for current operations but for long-term investment. The tinkering around the edges of the tax code and the fixes, like the need to continue to ``patch'' the AMT in order to protect 30 million people, is counterproductive. It will cost money to repair the broken tax code, but it is an investment well worth the cost.

We should, instead, repeal the AMT, lower the rates, broaden the base, make the code simpler, more fair, and less costly. If we will be $1 trillion more in debt, we should at least address the infrastructure deficit. That would at least pay for itself with projects that will last for decades while putting hundreds of thousands to work at family wage jobs.

Make no mistake, this vote means an exchange for a little temporary relief weighted in favor of those who need it the least. This bill means Americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy, and costs of an unfair tax system. It's a bad bargain for the future of America's families.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5897 was not the way to help Social Security beneficiaries deal with the financial difficulties facing so many.

There is no doubt that millions of Americans have been hurt by this recession. I am sympathetic to those who are struggling and this bill wasn't the way to address the problem. A political gesture that would never become law is not fair to anyone.

Sending a $250 check to seniors, the disabled, and other beneficiaries of Social Security, irrespective of their needs or their income, sends the wrong message to people who are concerned about federal spending.

As part of our assessment of Social Security, we need to assure the cost of living adjustments are determined in a way that reflects the costs that seniors and others are bearing today and in the future. It also needs to be done in a fiscally responsible way that does not add to the federal deficit or threaten the future strength of the Social Security trust fund.

H.R. 5987 failed these counts and I will vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system. This is no easy task and it remains a contentious issue for many people. We should not allow the failures of the past to prevent us from finding a path forward.

Comprehensive immigration reform legislation must reduce wait-times for people trying to follow our immigration laws. It should simplify and stabilize an effective guest worker program, give employers the resources they need to hire a legal workforce and better tools to uphold our laws. It must address border security. And it must bring into fold the 11 million people currently living in our country without documentation.

Passing the DREAM Act is an important step toward achieving comprehensive immigration reform and I am proud to support this legislation. It recognizes that many children are brought to the U.S. and who are not citizens are nonetheless working hard on their future. In many respects our futures are the same. The DREAM Act is an important step not just for the welfare and future of these young people, but for the welfare and future of America.

These are children and students who have grown up in the U.S., who are part of our country, who have succeeded in school and stayed out of trouble, who are committed to going to college or joining our armed forces. We should welcome them. This is what the American Dream is all about.

Issues of fairness aside, there are very practical reasons to support this legislation:

Our military supports the DREAM Act because it improves military readiness, which is why Colin Powell and Robert Gates both support the legislation and why it is reflected in the Defense Department's strategic plan;

By integrating these young people into our economy, the CBO reports that the DREAM Act will reduce our deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years;

Increasing the number of people going to college or achieving careers in our armed forces will expand our economy, which will increase opportunities for everyone.

I look forward to voting in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the major decision we face on taxation this Congress boils down to this vote.

This situation represents a failure of imagination, a failure of political will, and, sadly, a failure to invest in our future.

It represents the inability of Congress to seize an opportunity for real reform.

If the message of the election was that we should not add to our nation's debt, then we should not extend tax cuts that will add trillions of dollars to that debt.

If voters this election were concerned about jobs, then we can have a much greater effect on employment by using a small portion of the money in question to fund a substantial transportation bill and addressing our nation's infrastructure deficit.

If the election was about tax fairness, then we can do more for fairness by permanently

eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which no billionaire pays but which now threatens 29 million middle-income families. While we are at it, we could permanently fix the physician payment issue.

These are perennial challenges. Addressing them now will require far less debt, save money in the long run, and will avoid needless heartburn for millions of people right now.

Instead, the political process is failing the American people as we face a choice between a sub-optimal bill and a bad bill.

We can and should do better.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his important leadership on the child nutrition program legislation.

In Oregon, we are the third hungriest State in the country, so there is much in this legislation that means a difference immediately to families and children in our State. But indeed, expanding school lunch meal programs to all 50 States, the $40 million in mandatory farm-to- school funding, these are all elements that everybody ought to rejoice about.

Our children deserve our best, the most nutritious food that we can give them, and sadly that is not the case with school lunch programs, as we all know. This bill, while not as good as the bill, Mr. Miller, that you originally drafted, will help provide more children with healthy food choices.

I am particularly pleased with the additional farm-to-school funding. This will help children, teachers, and local farmers. This is exactly the sort of win-win program we should be focusing on, particularly during difficult economic times.

We all should be troubled by the decrease in the food stamp funding that is used to help deal with the financing deficit in this bill. I hope the administration will indeed work hard with us to find ways to diminish the cut. It is a sad day when the only way we can feed hungry children at school is by taking away food from them at home.

At a time when people are talking with a straight face about borrowing $4 trillion for tax cuts, including hundreds of billions for the most fortunate of Americans, the notion that we would shortchange our children in this fashion is regrettable. We can do better.

The legislation, as it is, before us is an important first step, and I look forward to building upon this foundation so that we can finally give our children, from coast to coast, the nutrition they need and deserve.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill as I appreciate his insightful comments about where we are and where we are going.

Madam Speaker, I, too, listened to what was not a debate on this bill but a continuation of the political rhetoric that the American public has enjoyed over the course of the last 3 or 4 months. Actually, I don't know that they enjoyed it, as the people I heard from back home actually got rather tired of it.

It was ironic that I heard my good friend Ms. Foxx talking about the government takeover of health care after I had just been visited by representatives of one of the largest health insurance companies in America, who was talking about their role in health care reform. They saw it as making a path towards better health care and that they'd have to do some things differently but that they were working on the implementation of it. I met with these representatives back home after the election. I met with a wide variety of people from health care, who were talking about how we move forward in this partnership that has been focused and in terms of how we improve Medicare for our seniors.

The notion that somehow this is a takeover is lost on the people who are actually in the health care arena, and the American public will find that out. We will be able to hear their suggestions going forward.

With regard to the notion of the failed stimulus, I just left a group of eight large corporate representatives, who were talking about moving forward on some of the infrastructure and energy items that were important to them. Yesterday, a dozen energy executives who thought it was important, as well as creating and saving jobs. The disconnect between the political rhetoric and what any American can verify by talking to the health care businesses that are involved will show that it's rather hollow.

But that is why the legislation before us got bogged down, because there were extraneous provisions in it that looked good in a sound byte but actually had little to do with the legislation. For instance, the provision that would have required denial of the ability to telecommute to people who were delinquent in their taxes was actually unenforceable. There was no way that the IRS could do what they wanted to do, and so they were willing to deny the ability of the Federal Government to be able to have the efficiencies that people back home in Oregon have with telecommunication in the private sector, rather they would continue to bog it down.

We in Congress can telecommute. It makes me available to be able to work 7 days a week whether I'm in Washington, D.C., or I'm in Portland. Our staff does it routinely, but they would deny the ability of Federal employees.

This is, as my friend from New York pointed out, bipartisan legislation. It's always had Republicans and Democrats supporting it. It's received strong majorities. I'm sure it will pass today. But I'm hopeful that we can focus on the business at hand, not hang up important work.

I want to make sure that any Federal employee who is delinquent in their taxes pays up. I'm happy to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to focus specific legislation in that regard, and as a member of Ways and Means, I'm happy to work with them to do that. But for heaven's sake, let's deal with important things here, perhaps not repeat all the political talking points. Let's get down to some serious business.

Thank you.

I was on my way out of the Chamber and I heard my friend from Colorado

talk about attacking out-of-control Federal spending by making sure that there's no direct or indirect ability for resources from the Federal Government to go to NPR. Madam Speaker, I find that really a sad reflection on the current state of affairs.

National public broadcasting is one of the few areas where the American public can actually get balanced information. It's not the bloviators on the right or the left. Public broadcasting, because it is not taking commercial advertising, because it has a commitment to public service and balanced information, has been the most important, unbiased source available to Americans from coast to coast.

The Federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively minor. It is 10, 15 percent, when you add everything up, but it is an important portion because it leverages vast amounts of money that otherwise would not be available.

I, like my friend from Colorado, participate. I go to the telethons. I contribute every year from my family, and I'm glad to do it. You know, but if this agenda, which is where the Republicans who took over last time were trying to go, to defund public broadcasting, is picked up even before they take control is successful, it's going to have very serious consequences. It's not going to affect Denver. It's not going to affect Portland, Oregon, or San Francisco or New York except that the quality of some of the programs will erode, frankly, because these are tough times and sponsorship from the business community is down and individuals are having to stretch to be able to contribute. These services are more important than ever, when we've got all these screaming heads on the air giving forth information that is hardly balanced and accurate.

But what will happen? Not only the erosion of quality and some of the programs for culture and education that are not going to have a commercial base will be eroded. What is going to have the biggest impact, if they have their way, will be the areas of America that don't have the population base. Rural and small town America will pay the price.

Oregon public broadcasting is one of the finest public broadcasting systems in the United States, but the most expensive persons to serve are the people in the far reaches of our State, where we put up expensive translators to be able to get the programming out there. We have programming that is designed to reach to the furthest extent of our State, and that is subsidized. If we are going to lose the modest amount of Federal subsidization, it will not only affect the quality in Denver and Portland and Charlotte, in Atlanta, in Ithaca, but it's going to make it harder for rural and small town America to be able to get this vital service.

You look at the costs that they bear, that will be an area that will suffer the cuts if we're not able to maintain funding. I think that's a tragedy. I think it is a tragedy to try to politicize NPR.

I'm not going to comment on the handling of the Juan Williams episode. There are others that have talked about it endlessly. The head of NPR indicated she would have handled it differently.

When you mix NPR and FOX News and you go back and deconstruct that, they have rules of journalism that they follow, that people are supposed to follow, and Mr. Williams had trouble following those rules before.

But notwithstanding that, the point is we need to have the public in public broadcasting. The Federal minuscule dollars that are invested in that compared to the amount of money that is wasted in defense, in agriculture subsidy pales by comparison. And I think we are going to be able to work with some of the new Members of Congress to deal with things that have defied reform in the past. I am looking forward to some of what they say.

But public broadcasting is a resource, is a treasure for Americans from coast to coast. It is trusted by more Americans than any other resource in terms of the news, and it is far more than just news. It is education. It is culture. It is history. And it would be a tragedy to eat away at NPR to make it harder to serve the difficult-to-reach areas of our country.

Madam Speaker, I think that every Member of Congress, and especially Democrats, at this point should welcome the recommendations of the two cochairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. This is one of the rare, tangible, and comprehensive approaches that have come through the political process to deal with an issue that everyone should be concerned about: how we pay for what America needs amidst growing budget deficits and strains on our entitlement programs.

We must not underestimate the value of two reasonable, credible people, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, both with experience on a national scale and an assignment from the President, who have recommended a combination of ways to increase revenue and deal with

entitlement spending. Every independent observer feels that such a balance is a critical part of the solution. The question is what the balance should be between revenue increases, budget and benefit cuts, and most critical of all, how we change doing business. The reform and evolution of our government's role is central. Unless we can change the way we do business--Medicare, defense, agriculture--no amount of tax increase or program cuts will get America to where we need to be with our economy and government services.

This is the debate that we Democrats, especially those who are in the center or left of center, should welcome. This is what the majority of the American public and independent observers without an axe to grind believe to be the real issues. This is a debate that certainly has not occurred on the national level, especially during the election, but it should have. I, for one, will resist the efforts to reject out of hand the cochairs' proposals before they have even worked their way through the commission. Instead, I will focus on areas where I think agreement can be built across the political spectrum and, most important, with the American public.

In a period of spiraling deficits and reductions in government services, how high a priority is a mortgage interest deduction on expensive third homes? Do we need to spend billions of dollars protecting West Germany from the Soviet Union when both countries ceased to exist more than two decades ago, and it has been more than half a century since the end of World War II?

Many candidates who ran under the Tea Party banner have argued against the lavish, unnecessary system of agricultural subsidies that are bad for the taxpayers, bad for the environment, and shortchange most of America's small farmers and ranchers. This has been an area where Republicans and Democrats alike have labored for reform; and in some areas, we have been joined by President Obama. Don't we see the potential for a coalition to get this across the finish line?

Yes, by all means, debate the rebuilding and renewing America. This was a great point in the report. There will, for example, be high-speed trains in America in the next 20 years. The question is: Will Americans invest and build them? Or will they be built, financed, and operated by the Chinese? What is the price of our high-speed rail connections managed by foreigners, and we pay them for the privilege? This is why I hope that people across the country, especially Democrats and, in particular, our leaders, move to embrace areas of agreement.

To be sure, there are areas that I find problematic. There are some with which I strongly disagree. But they shouldn't merit rejection of the whole package before we even have the debate. Instead, I welcome the opportunity to discuss, debate, and analyze elements on which we don't see eye to eye. How about some good old-fashioned, if somewhat boring, civic education and discourse? It is, after all, only the future of our Nation that is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I appreciate the expeditious work of the committee bringing this legislation forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the quick turnaround. It is a little frustrating. I admire the persistence of our friend, Mr. Gallegly. It has been my pleasure to have worked with him for over a decade on this legislation. We thought we had it taken care of when it was woven into the farm bill of 2002. Unfortunately, as has been referenced, the Supreme Court decision earlier this year created a problem and brought the problem right back.

It was a pleasure to join again with Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Moran and others, as a broad bipartisan group introduced the legislation that same week in an attempt to narrow the scope of the ban and ensure that it met the First Amendment standards. I think we have reached the point where we have done that.

I am a little frustrated, as I know people who care deeply about this legislation, that it seems to go back and forth on something where there is broad bipartisan awareness, agreement, and, certainly with the general public, that people ought not to profit out of torturing animals. This is, as is referenced, illegal virtually everywhere. It is disturbing in terms of what happens. And it isn't just issues of animal cruelty. Research has shown that the people who are involved with this despicable trade, both in terms of the dissemination and use of it, are much more likely to engage in other criminal acts.

I am hopeful that at this point we might be able to bring this to a conclusion, to be able to pass this legislation to provide these protections, to get this out of the stream of commerce and be able to provide the protections that the public expects us to provide. We were given an opportunity from the Supreme Court to be able to narrowly craft a response. I think legislatively we have done that. I am hopeful that we can act expeditiously, passing this today and working with the Senate to make sure that it is enacted into law and we meet this objective.

Mr. Speaker, in working with 26 Oregon National Guard members who have filed a lawsuit against defense contractor KBR, I discovered these Oregon veterans have a compelling case that, while serving in Iraq, KBR's negligence resulted in their poisoning by hexavalent chromium, a very potent carcinogen. In the legal proceedings, KBR recently revealed the existence of a still-classified contract clause that could shift the cost of all the damages and court fees onto the Department of Defense and, of course by extension, the U.S. taxpayers.

I vowed to fight to end a contracting flaw that can shield contractors from their own reckless behavior and removes incentives for them to operate responsibly. Today I will introduce legislation that will set important long overdue limits to indemnification agreements and to correct this problem with congressional oversight of the defense contracting process. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this legislation before the end of the session.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership in working to have a piece of legislation here that can be brought forward in a bipartisan fashion, listening to the concerns that were expressed repeatedly to our committee.

I come from an area of the country that is intensely trade dependent. Some of our iconic brands, Nike, Harry and David, Columbia Sportswear, would not exist without strong international partnerships.

Oregon's largest private employer, Intel, is a product of the international market for high-tech products. This makes a difference to people in my community. When we find, as the International Monetary Fund has found, the currency of the Chinese is significantly undervalued, it makes the United States exports more expensive in China and Chinese imports cheap in the United States and third country markets.

My support for trade is contingent upon our making sure that we are using the tools in an aggressive fashion. We should be using all of the tools in our national trade tool box, the WTO, our bilateral agreements, shared agreements, forums that the United States and China are party to, U.S. domestic law, all of these to make sure that we are ensuring this level playing field that people are talking about here.

If, as has been estimated, China's currency policy could reduce our gross domestic product by over a percentage point when we are trying desperately to jump-start the economy, this is precisely the policy we should do moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to vote on this today. I think this sends a strong signal that we want our international trade regime to work, that we are not just mindlessly entering into these agreements, but we are going to make sure that they are enforced. This an important step.

Madam Speaker, since July, I have been working with 26 Oregon National Guard members who have filed a lawsuit against the defense contractor KBR for exposing them to the potent carcinogen, hexavalent chromium. These veterans have a compelling case for contractor negligence that resulted in their poisoning.

As the legal proceedings have unfolded, KBR has revealed the existence of a still-classified contract clause that could shift the cost of all damages and court fees onto the Department of Defense--and by extension the U.S. taxpayers.

Today I am introducing legislation, along with Representative Schrader, who has been a strong ally to these veterans, and Representative Walter Jones, a leader on the House Armed Services Committee, to end the contracting practices that shield companies from their own reckless behavior and that remove incentives for contractors to operate responsibly.

This legislation will set important and long-overdue limits to indemnification agreements and will introduce much-needed congressional oversight of the defense contracting process.

Senators Wyden and Merkley are introducing a version of this bill in the Senate, and I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers will act swiftly to enact this legislation before the end of the session.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Heavy Truck Tax Fairness Act. Nothing is more essential to restoring the economy, revitalizing our communities, and protecting our environment than the effort to rebuild and renew America. The U.S. faces steep infrastructure challenges. Our infrastructure inventory is in poor repair and much of it is outdated--not just decades, but often centuries old. Our effort to rebuild and renew that infrastructure is stalled because of a funding impasse. The Highway Trust Fund nearly exhausted its funding several times recently and it is clear that our existing funding mechanisms are insufficient to meet our current, much less future, needs. Congress must consider new revenue sources to meet our infrastructure challenges and must work with transportation users to find the most efficient means of raising this revenue.

The funding sources for the Highway Trust Fund can be volatile, depending on the health of the economy. Current law places a 12 percent tax on the sale of new heavy trucks, trailers, and certain tractors. This tax is an important source of Highway Trust Fund revenues. In times of economic stress, these sales fall dramatically, badly limiting Trust Fund resources. These lost sales have several important effects. By reducing revenue to the Trust Fund, the decline hinders economic productivity by imposing costs from poor infrastructure. It also reflects an increase in the average age of the trucking fleet. New trucks have significant environmental and safety advantages, and Congress should reduce the barriers to new truck acquisition. To meet the demand for new trucks, most truck manufacturers will add employees, as most have significant engine and final assembly operations in the

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation authorizing a pilot project to develop the tools needed by private industry, the IRS, and the Department of Transportation to meet our infrastructure funding challenges for the next century.

Nothing is more essential to restoring the economy, revitalizing our communities, and protecting our environment than the effort to rebuild and renew America. The U.S. faces steep infrastructure challenges. Our infrastructure inventory is in poor repair and much of it is outdated-- not just decades, but often centuries old. Our effort to rebuild and renew that infrastructure is stalled because of a funding impasse. The Highway Trust Fund nearly exhausted its funding several times recently and it is clear that our existing funding mechanisms are insufficient to meet our current, much less future, needs. Congress must consider new revenue sources to meet our infrastructure challenges and must work with transportation users to find the most efficient means of raising this revenue.

Most of America's transportation investment ability is premised on the gas tax. This source is becoming obsolete as vehicles are increasingly efficient, making increased demands on our infrastructure while contributing fewer resources. The current revenue system generates only two-thirds of the revenue needed to maintain current levels of investment.

While Congress waits, others are seeking innovative solutions to this challenging problem: the Oregon Department of Transportation conducted successful tests of mileage-based revenue systems that seamlessly protected privacy while applying a user fee; two blue ribbon panels called for further exploration of such a system; and I have introduced prior legislation that would fund tests of such systems in each state. Under the Transportation Finance Innovation Demonstration Act, the concrete pumping industry has stepped forward to create a pilot project exploring how a mileage system would work in practice.

In an unintended consequence of the JOBS Act of 2004, concrete pumping trucks pay gasoline tax on 100 percent of their fuel consumption, even though 50 percent of their fuel is consumed at construction sites in stationary operation. Concrete pumping trucks already collect much of the necessary information about distance traveled and fuel consumption necessary for the function of a mileage- based fee. With a few minor hardware and software additions, concrete pumps nationwide could collect and transmit data to the IRS in a highly accurate and secure manner.

The legislation directs the Department of the Treasury to work with the Department of Transportation to establish a demonstration project providing a refund of gasoline taxes to concrete pumping trucks and the imposition of an off-setting mileage fee reflecting the distance the concrete pumping truck traveled on U.S. roadways.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to expand the discretionary authority of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to take action under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Specifically, the legislation would allow USTR to investigate and impose sanctions on countries whose trade practices are found to be unfair to U.S. interests by failing to enforce foreign country environmental laws. Specifically, USTR will have discretionary authority to take action if it finds a persistent pattern of conduct that indicates a trading partner:

(I) Fails to effectively enforce the environmental laws of a foreign country;

(II) Waives or otherwise derogates from the environmental laws of a foreign country or weakens the protections afforded by such laws;

(III) Fails to provide for judicial or administrative proceedings giving access to remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country; or

(IV) Fails to provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country.

This authority is very similar to existing authority held by USTR to enforce labor rights around the world.

My support for international trade agreements has always been predicated on the notion that agreements establish a fair, rules-based trading regime. The economy of my state is heavily trade-dependent. Oregon's iconic brands would not exist without strong international trading relationships. Oregon's largest private employer, Intel, is a product of the international market for high-tech products. The Port of Portland's distribution centers alone create 17,000 jobs, $810 million in wages and other personal income, and $2.8 billion in business revenues. Ensuring a level playing field in U.S. trading relationships is vital to protecting these jobs and to ensuring public support for a forward-looking, optimistic approach to trade policy.

Allowing our trading partners to derogate from their environmental laws provides an unfair advantage to their businesses and allows those businesses to unfairly undercut U.S. companies, which operate under strong environmental protections. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that trade remains free and open, but, in incorporating environmental and labor protections, also meets basic expectations of fairness.