Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3519, the Veterinarian Services Investment Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Since the fall of 2000, the Committee on Agriculture has worked on ways of resolving the serious veterinary shortage problem confronting many rural communities. With the passage of the National Veterinary Medical Service Act in December of 2003, a program was finally authorized to incentivize large animal veterinarians to practice in communities that USDA designated as veterinarian shortage areas. With this program in place, large animal veterinarians are able to apply on a competitive basis for educational loan repayment assistance in exchange for their commitment to practice in shortage

areas for the length of time as established by the regulations.

While it's unfortunate that it took almost 6 years for USDA to establish a final rule implementing this first step, I'm optimistic that when the first awards are issued in the coming weeks, we'll begin a slowdown and hopefully reverse this problem.

To the extent that the loan program is successful, it's important to consider that this was just the first step. While this assistance will be very helpful in attracting veterinarians to these communities, there remain gaps in veterinarian recruitment, attracting and training technical support staff, and simply meeting the long-term costs of operating veterinarian practices in these communities.

The Veterinarian Services Investment Act is meant to address these secondary needs and is designed to complement the loan repayment program to help large animal veterinarians become established in these communities.

This bill recognizes and addresses a real problem in rural America, and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor. I support this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), who has done an outstanding job of shepherding this bill through, understands the challenges in his State and in rural communities across America, and he's trying to do something.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The aim of this legislation is to clarify that the use of a pesticide consistent with its registration under FIFRA should not be subject to a costly, redundant and unnecessary permit process under the Clean Water Act.

Though the intent of Congress was clear in exempting pesticide use from the Clean Water Act, it is unfortunate that the courts have chosen to ignore Congressional intent and instead order pesticide applicators to obtain these permits. It is even more unfortunate that the administration chose not to challenge the lower court's decision, despite the fact that former Solicitor General Elena Kagan stated in her brief to the Supreme Court that the lower court had erred in their ruling; and that this erroneous decision would likely apply to many thousands of pesticide applications each year.

The former Solicitor General and now Associate Supreme Court Justice acknowledged in her brief that under FIFRA, the EPA is required to determine that to be registered, a pesticide must perform its function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and that when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.

The Obama administration, or at least Justice Kagan seems to recognize that this permit process is not only duplicative, but will not achieve any additional environmental protection.

I joined with several of my colleagues in an amicus brief in support of a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case. The lack of support from the Obama administration ultimately led to this petition being rejected.

Instead of challenging this misguided decision, the Obama administration has chosen to leave our farmers, ranchers, foresters, mosquito control districts, and even States to face an enormous regulatory burden never intended by Congress.

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act, the EPA had interpreted the act to exclude lawful pesticide applications. Under the Bush administration, the EPA issued a final regulation codifying this long- standing practice. The

current political leadership of the EPA has chosen a different path, one that on a daily basis adds more and more to the regulatory nightmare that rural America faces in its fight to survive under this administration.

It is now up to the Congress to fix this problem before the EPA imposes this new bureaucracy on American agriculture. I am pleased to offer this legislative fix and invite all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing conference report. At a time when Congress should be focused on economic expansion, the majority brings us this conference report, which will kill jobs and make financial transactions more expensive.

Last December, this Chamber supported a bipartisan effort to bring transparency and regulation to the over-the-counter derivatives market while allowing for the management of legitimate risk. It recognized that mom-and-pop shops on Main Street were not the villains behind the economic collapse. They did not cause the financial crisis and should not be treated as if they did.

The derivatives title this Chamber passed reflected the need for commercial end users to lay off risk so they could offer their products at reasonable and stable prices. Unfortunately, the Senate decided that only some industries, only some, were worthy of inexpensive risk mitigation.

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan support our derivatives language enjoyed, during a meeting in the dark of night our bipartisan language was stripped out. A title that we passed by voice vote was only going to survive if offered as an amendment. So that is

what my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and I did. As the conferees from this Chamber, we defended the House position. Unfortunately, at dawn last Friday, our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, stripping away the only remaining protection for end users. American small businesses were told by the majority they would be regulated as though they were Wall Street.

A report released yesterday believes the language change by the majority could cost U.S. companies $1 trillion in capital and liquidity requirements. This isn't money to pay lavish bonuses; this is money to pay salaries, fund research and development, and pay construction loans.

Further analysis of this language concludes that $400 billion would be needed for collateral for businesses to post with dealer counterparts to cover the exposure of their existing over-the-counter derivatives. It is estimated that another $370 billion represents the additional credit capacity that companies could need to cover future risk.

Despite the majority's voracious appetite for spending, these are enormous dollar amounts. Rural America doesn't have the option of waiving phony PAYGO requirements. These costs are real and the ability to pay them does not exist. Business will now have to cut spending, which, simply put, means job losses or hold on at its very own risk, thereby further concentrating risk.

You know, once upon a time this bill was supposed to avoid risk concentration. That was once upon a time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is a very significant participant on both the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Small Business Administration Committee and a very valued member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I rise in support of House Resolution 1460, recognizing the important role pollinators play in supporting the ecosystem and supporting the goals and ideals of National Pollinator Week.

More than 32 State Governors designated the last week of June as Pollinator Week to bring awareness to the important role pollinators play in our food supply and ecosystem. In my home State of Oklahoma, Pollinator Week was celebrated with a variety of activities and exhibits across the State, including those at the Oxley Nature Center in Tulsa. On a national level, the Pollinator Partnership has launched a Web-based program to highlight specific actions that school groups, farmers, gardeners, and others can take to support pollinators.

It is important that we bring awareness to the importance of pollinators, given the fact that most pollinating species are in a decline. Colony Collapse Disorder, commonly referred to as CCD, continues to plague honeybees and will be a major concern to beekeepers and agricultural communities.

Over the past several years, the honeybee population has experienced a dramatic decline due to a variety of factors, including loss of habitat, introduction of diseases and pests, and migratory stress. All of these factors have contributed to higher operating costs for the pollinator industry as well as the agricultural producers who rely on a readily available supply of pollinator bees.

Pollination activities by honeybees add more than $15 billion annually to the value of U.S. crops. With one-third of our food supply dependent upon pollination by honeybees, we need to have a solid understanding of CCD and how to eradicate it.

I commend researchers from the Federal and State level as well as the industry, State universities, and State Departments of Agriculture for coming together under the CCD Working Group. I am hopeful that this collective group of experts can get to the bottom of this very important problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the valuable

contribution of America's pollinator industry by supporting House Resolution 1460.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to close by thanking my colleagues Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. Johnson for their work on this important issue. It does make a tremendous difference in our ecology, and certainly with a $15 billion tag, the effect of losing these pollinators on our agricultural economy, it's important to every consumer and every pocketbook.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is unusual that America has an opportunity to thank an individual citizen for his contributions to protecting lives and property of our citizens, but in the case of Dr. James ``Jeff'' Kimpel, the Director of NOAA's Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma, we have just this kind of individual tirelessly dedicated to improving the research and development of weather and meteorology programs, Jeff Kimpel is now retiring on June 18 to spend more time with his 5 children and 2 grandchildren in Norman, Oklahoma.

During his last 13 years of federal service Jeff Kimpel has served the nation by working to improve the lead-time and accuracy of severe weather forecasts and weather warnings in order to save the lives of many Americans and to save property from being destroyed. In the state of Oklahoma, severe weather is a massive problem, and accurate estimates of the true threats from severe weather are especially of interest to not just our state, but to a wide range of users. This includes weather forecasters, the insurance industry, emergency management communities and the general public. Dr. Kimpel has worked with the NSSL and was able to establish strong programs that have helped speed up the construction of the National Weather Center building, which is shared with the National Weather Service (NWS), and the University of Oklahoma Meteorology Program.

Dr. Kimpel has been a pioneer in the field of technology and meteorology. The NSSL has been able to expound on many programs to enhance their technology, all under the watch of Dr. Kimpel. The NSSL has performed research that has led to the upgrade of NEXRADs (NEXt generation weather RADar) from propriety to open systems, which also added super resolution capability and designed dual polarization upgrades.

As a long serving member of the House of Science and Technology Committee, I commend the work of Dr. Jeff Kimpel and recognize his outstanding science related positions including President of the American Meteorological Society, National Science Foundation positions, Department of Energy, and a participant in major decision making policy in the environmental, and meteorological and atmospheric areas for NOAA and other government agencies. Dr. Kimpel was instrumental in establishing support for NSSL that led to the construction of a magnificent national weather center building shared with the National Weather Service and the University of Oklahoma's meteorology program. He is truly one of the world's foremost authorities on severe weather including tornados, thunderstorms, hail, strong winds, heavy rainfall, ice storms, flooding and winter storms who has explored new technologies during his career for using weather information to assist government forecasters and federal, university, and private sector partners.

Today we would like to thank you for your service and dedication, and for all the work that you have put in. Thank you and best of luck with all your future undertakings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 62, which recognizes the 75 years of service of the National Resources Conservation Service, the NRCS. Created by Congress in 1935, the Soil Conservation Service, now known as the NRCS, has worked hand-in-hand with local governments, organizations, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to preserve and protect our Nation's natural resources on private lands.

Farmers were conserving long before it became a celebrated trend to ``go green''. They have always had a vested interest in preserving the land that provides for them. Partnering with the NRCS, our producers are provided the scientific and technical assistance to implement the most advanced conservation practices in the world.

Through the NRCS's assistance and implementation of conservation programs, producers have voluntarily worked to help reduce soil erosion, increase wetlands, and improve water and air quality, meeting mounting government regulations and preserving farmland and wildlife habitat. The environmental gains produced on these private lands provide benefits far beyond the farm.

The benefits of the NRCS's assistance are evident in my home State of Oklahoma. The conservation practices implemented by the producers have reduced the removal of topsoil and prevented a recurrence of the disastrous conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl from ever happening again. NRCS also works to protect the safety of our rural communities by rehabilitating old dams and working to implement flood prevention programs.

I would like to thank Chairman Peterson for his leadership in introducing a similar resolution I have cosponsored. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Ag Committee who have helped to craft the greenest farm bills in recent history. But most importantly, I want to thank and congratulate the men and women of the Natural Resources Conservation Service for their work in the field over the years, providing our producers with the assistance to protect our natural resources.

And let me just say once again: representing a part of the great State of Oklahoma that faced the greatest challenges of both the economic depression of the 1930s and the Dust Bowl, those good folks at what at that time was the Soil Conservation Service, working with what we would now consider to be very primitive equipment, working to educate and encourage producers to adopt practices that would ultimately make such a tremendous difference they have--what can you say? Whether it's the NRCS or the old Soil Conservation Service, the same great people for 75 years taking care of our natural resources. Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 202, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the time to recognize the retirement of a longtime Republican aide on the House Agriculture Committee: Bill O'Conner. For more than 30 years, Bill O'Conner has come to be known as a highly knowledgeable staffer who could work with members and aides from both sides of the aisle, respected for his professionalism, and appreciated for the experience and expertise he contributed to policy discussions.

Although Bill was raised in Kansas, I am proud to recognize that he was born in my home state of Oklahoma. He graduated from Wichita State University. And after serving a tour with the Marines, he earned his master's degree at Wichita State University and continued to do doctoral work at Ohio State University.

Bill's long career on Capitol Hill began in 1979 when he first worked as an analyst for the House Republican Conference. In 1981, he became the Executive Director of the House Republican Research Committee under the Chairmanship of Rep. Ed Madigan of Illinois. Two years later when Rep. Madigan became the Ranking Republican on the House

Agriculture Committee, Bill was appointed the Deputy Minority Staff Director.

For the next seven years, Bill was responsible for policy and legislative development for Agriculture Committee Republicans. In 1991, Rep. Madigan became the Secretary of Agriculture and appointed Bill as his Chief of Staff. Bill served in that role through the balance of President George H.W. Bush's administration.

In 1993, Bill returned to the Republican House Agriculture Committee as Policy Director under Rep. Pat Roberts of Kansas. He continued as Policy Director or Staff Director for the remainder of his career working under Rep. Bob Smith of Oregon, Rep. Larry Combest of Texas, Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, and Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.

Bill's knowledge and experience made him an essential staffer in the development and implementation of U.S. agriculture policy. He played a key role in the reauthorization of five farm bills. And, he has been regarded as an expert on agriculture policy matters by both Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate members.

One story that highlights the trust Bill earned from members of Congress happened in 2003 when the Agriculture Committee received reconciliation instructions. Rep. Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House, called a members meeting to discuss the instructions, which included Bill as staff director of the committee. Prior to starting the meeting, Speaker Hastert announced to the group that he wanted everyone to know that in 1986 Ed Madigan dispatched Bill O'Conner to assist with his first campaign to Congress. Madigan advised him to quote ``listen to everything this man tells you.'' Hastert continued to say that he did then and has done so every day since.

It is fair to say that every Chairman and Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee for whom Bill has worked was also wise to follow Mr. Madigan's advice. We remain grateful for Bill's dedication and service. His leadership, knowledge, experience, and professionalism will be missed, but we do wish him and his family the very best in the future.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3509, the Agricultural Credit Act of 2009. I'm an original cosponsor of this bill, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation to reauthorize the State agricultural mediation program. The State mediation program provides our farmers and ranchers with a voluntary and low-cost service to mediate disputes that may arise between their creditors and themselves and to address adverse decisions with the USDA. The State programs do this in a confidential and nonadversarial setting outside of the traditional legal process of foreclosure, bankruptcy, appeals, and litigation.

Like most of the country, the agricultural sector is currently experiencing increased financial stress, which has created a greater need for the services of the agricultural mediator program. The Agriculture Committee favorably considered this bill with no opposition, and I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting the continuation of the USDA agricultural mediation program.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3954, a bill to address several public land issues in the great State of Florida. This legislation helps resolve

significant title and boundary issues on State and Federal lands in the State of Florida. The bill promotes better efficiency in public land management by allowing the State and Federal governments to exchange land that is better managed by each other.

This bill also allows the proceeds from the sale of certain tracts of land in the Apalachicola National Forest to be used to build a much needed administrative facility to manage the land.

This bill has the support of the Forestry Service. It has no budgetary impact. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker, and I wish to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution states, ``the yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This is to ensure that important pieces of legislation, like the one before us this week, are given a clear up-or- down vote. Yet here we stand today with the possibility that a massive, trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system would actually not be voted on in this Chamber. Not only does this violate the spirit of fairness within the rules of the House and the confidence entrusted in us by our constituents, it potentially violates our Constitution. Legislative gymnastics should not be used to pass a bill of this magnitude that will impact the life of every American. Change is needed within our health care system. We can all agree on that. But in an effort to pass a health care bill--any bill--this congressional majority has lost their way.

Madam Chair, this amendment will most certainly not help those who it is designed to help. It will drive up the cost of loans, limit the number of loans that can be made, raise interest rates, and increase opportunities for abuse in the bankruptcy system.

I want to focus the House on another important problem that has not been discussed: how the bankruptcy laws and the accounting rules and treatments combine to do potentially substantial and lasting damage to the financial system.

Under existing accounting rules, any bankruptcy loss may be considered an indication of impairment. The term that is used by accountants is ``other than temporarily impaired,'' or ``OTTI.'' I want to make sure that the House understands the consequences of this problem in the real world. Even if a company took a

small bankruptcy loss on one of the residential mortgage-backed securities, RMBS, that it owns, the amount of loss that would be recognized in that company's income statement is a full writedown to deeply depressed market values, not just the amount deemed to be a bankruptcy. Any loss of principal, current or future, requires this treatment no matter what term is used to describe the loss. If a judge can adjust principal, then a significant detrimental impact to the company will automatically follow.

The House must clearly understand that the losses which would be recognized by financial institutions in this situation are far greater than the amount of the bankruptcy losses. Any RMBS holder will have to record these losses in the same manner, and so the threat of bankruptcy ``cramdowns'' casts a huge shadow across the entire financial services industry. For example, if a company owns $5 million in RMBS with a current market value of $2,500,000, and there is a bankruptcy loss per the judge of $50,000 economic loss to the preferred RMBS traunch, the required financial statement loss under existing accounting rules would be $2,500,000. In this example, accounting rules require booking the financial statement loss at 50 times the actual economic loss.

This is a stark, but true, statement of the horrific impact that existing accounting rules are likely to have on the financial services industry in the event this legislation becomes law. It would only take a few of these kinds of losses to destroy the current year operating positions of any company and greatly impact its overall capital position.

This means that the cramdown amendment the House considers today carries with it a virus that threatens to consume significant parts of the financial services industry, particularly any company that is a significant holder of RMBS. The majority either does not understand, or has chosen not to deal with, this significant and looming problem. Likewise, there is a lack of understanding about the major role that accounting rules and treatments play in it, I earnestly hope that our colleagues in the other body will address this issue squarely, and understand that cramdown without accounting reform and strict limitations on the discretion of bankruptcy judges has the potential to create significant and unanticipated collateral damage to our financial system, as well as loss of credibility with financial services industry customers and widespread negative ratings from all rating agencies.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of the Peterson-Frank amendment. It represents a year-long attempt to balance the needs for stronger regulation and a need to manage legitimate financial risk.

Under this amendment, end users will not be regulated as though they were a major financial house residing on Wall Street. They are not systematically risky, they did not cause the financial collapse, and they should not be regulated as if they did.

Not all concerns, however, have been resolved. And I would have preferred language that would have made clear only those that can cause a significant, adverse impact on the U.S. financial system to be regulated as major swap participants.

For that purpose, I am supporting Congressman Murphy's amendment that we will see shortly to cure that deficiency.

Similarly, I don't understand why market makers that only deal in cleared products need to have additional capital and margin requirements imposed on them by the Federal Government.

Instead, this amendment allows the appropriate financial regulator to more closely monitor the markets and those that may accumulate or generate too much risk for a healthy and robust financial system. It then gives the regulators the appropriate tools to reduce the risk before it can negatively affect our economy.

I have other concerns about this amendment. I am sure we would all do things differently if we could. This amendment isn't perfect, but it is a marked improvement over other legislative efforts either proposed or considered. This amendment is worthy of our support.

Now I will also admit, unfortunately, all of the hard work that went into the creation of this amendment may very well be overwhelmed by the massive overreach of the rest of the bill, but we should vote for and support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Murphy amendment which would, indeed, insert into the bill the House Agriculture Committee passed definition of ``major swap participant'' and ``major security-based swap participant.''

Like the definition of the same term in the Frank-Peterson amendment, the definition in this amendment excludes those positions held primarily for hedging, reducing, or otherwise mitigating commercial risk. Unlike the Peterson-Frank amendment, this definition in this amendment focuses the regulation on swap positions that could have a serious adverse effect on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets.

In other words, Mr. Murphy's definition focuses on the big boys, the big guys, those market participants that the regulatory enhancements in this bill are aimed at. It excludes the commercial users that are using over-the-counter markets to risk management, not to try and create wealth.

Once again, though, I have to note, the good effect of this amendment may well be lost in the massive overreach of the entire bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment is just another solution in search of a problem. What risk is this amendment looking to eliminate? Both the House Agriculture Committee passed language and the Peterson-Frank amendment, which this seeks to amend, recognize that there are swaps that need not go through the cost and formality of the executed on an exchange or swap execution facility.

As long as the regulator can see the swap and has the appropriate tools to mitigate risk to the U.S. financial system, what more does the exchange execution require add?

This amendment requires unique agreements of no consequence to anyone but the parties involved to be regulated as if it were a credit default swap transacted between systemically risky counterparties. These swaps serve no price discovery function, they aren't conducted between systemically risky parties, and most are unique for an exchange or SEF to appropriately rate the risk.

Forcing these swaps to be executed on an exchange or SEF will only artificially increase the cost of managing risk or discourage legitimate risk management activity altogether. Neither should be the purpose of this legislation.

I urge the defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

This amendment strikes the term ``balance sheet'' risk from the definition of major swap participant, the result of which prevents corporations from hedging pension of funds costs.

Pension funds are a liability on a corporation's balance sheet. That liability carries risk and that risk needs to be managed. If corporations can't manage pension fund risk, their employees will realize smaller benefits or fewer employees will enjoy pension benefits altogether. Some companies may be forced to join the ranks of employers who have terminated company-based retirement plans.

Another part of the amendment allows a party to a swap to walk away from a swap for failure to comply with the clearing requirement or the execution transparency requirement created in this title. It sounds like a good idea, but let's take a closer look.

The only time a party to a swap will want to walk away from a transaction is when they're losing money. This provision will encourage a swap participant to call his or her attorney when the deal goes sour to find a way to walk away from the liability created by the transaction. This contractual uncertainty will push companies away from risk mitigation, leading to higher operating costs and higher prices to consumers. In addition, this amendment is not needed to punish a counterparty for lack of compliance. If there's noncompliance with the clearing or execution transparency requirements, the CFTC can stop and catch the malefactors.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would note to my colleagues that I have one remaining speaker, and I would turn to him to close when the time is appropriate.

Madam Chair, I yield my remaining time to close to my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise today in opposition to H.R. 4173. Regulatory reform of our financial system is indeed needed. However, rather than using this opportunity to enact meaningful reform that creates financial stability and encourages economic growth, the majority has constructed a massive piece of legislation that will restrict credit availability and does little to address the real problems in the financial industry.

In addition to dramatically expanding the power of the Federal Reserve and establishing what is, in effect, a ``credit czar'' who will have virtually unlimited authority to restrict consumer choices, this bill will create a permanent bailout, some would call slush fund, for so-called ``too big to fail'' companies funded by a $150 billion tax on financial institutions. This tax will reduce available capital for lending and will most certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees.

As the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I also rise in opposition to title III, the OTC derivatives title, that is currently in H.R. 4173. This is the same title that was adopted by the Financial Services Committee. I opposed this title in the committee, where I'm also a member, because it makes it too costly for end-users to manage risk and unnecessarily ties up capital that could otherwise be used to create jobs and grow their businesses.

However, Chairman Peterson and Chairman Frank will bring an amendment to the floor that will strike and replace this derivatives title. This Peterson-Frank amendment is the product of negotiations between our two committees. I prefer, I must admit, the version reported by the Agriculture Committee, but this compromise is significantly better than the current title in the bill, and I will support its inclusion. But, I support its inclusion only if the other secondary amendments that may be offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are defeated, save one.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank Chairman Peterson for working with Agriculture Committee Republicans in a process that started back in February when our committee reported out H.R. 977. Chairman Peterson worked in good faith to address issues our members brought to the table, and we learned together the concerns of all of the participants in the over-the-counter derivatives markets. Although we were able to address some of these concerns, many still remain unresolved.

We were able to improve areas most important to end-users; the manufacturers, the energy companies and food processors that use swap agreements to manage price risk so they can provide consumers with the lowest-cost products. End-users should not be regulated as though they were major financial houses residing on Wall Street. They did not cause the financial collapse. They should not be regulated like they did.

I would have preferred language that would have made clear that only those entities that can have a significant adverse impact on the U.S. financial system be regulated as major swap participants. Similarly, I don't understand why market makers that only deal in cleared products need to have additional capital and margin requirements imposed upon them by the Federal Government.

Finally, we should not forget that new opportunities, innovative products and services, and ultimately economic growth are born from people willing and able to take risk and invest. We should not attempt to regulate risk out of existence. As it stands now, the Peterson-Frank amendment allows the appropriate financial regulator to closely monitor market trends and market participants who may generate too much risk for a healthy and robust financial system. This amendment also gives the regulator the appropriate tools to reduce risk before it can negatively affect our economy. The Peterson-Frank amendment isn't perfect, but it is a marked improvement over other legislative efforts either proposed or considered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Can I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining, please?

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

In my concluding remarks, I'd like to observe to my colleagues you can pass a 1,200-page bill, you can set up the process to generate tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, you can hire an army of faceless bureaucrats to enforce all of that stuff, to make decisions for the economy, to make decisions for business, to make decisions for people, but you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand.

If you add enough fees and enough rules and regulations to the process of delivering credit, you will drive away the sources of credit, reduce the supply of credit. At the same time, we hope to

reinvigorate this economy, to start it growing again. Demand for credit will go up. What happens when you lower the supply of credit and you raise the demand for credit? Through pieces of legislation like this, ultimately you drive up the cost of credit for everyone. The laws of supply and demand.

I know my friends believe they're sincerely doing the right thing, but the right thing in this scenario will drive down the availability of credit while at the same time demand goes up; and costs will go up, too, and that will affect every business, every person, every entity that needs credit.

I come from a capital-starved district in Oklahoma. Credit's important to every farmer, rancher, businessperson, every person engaged in the industry of energy production, every individual with a family trying to send their kids to school. Let's not make everything they do cost more.

I would now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.