Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me.

I, like the gentlemen are from Texas, am here in a state of disappointment. But mine is the reverse. A provision that was included in the Senate is not included in the House version of this bill. It is a piece of legislation that I introduced earlier this session and one that was offered as an amendment when this bill was considered by the House Ways and Means Committee, and it failed on a party-line vote. This provision, as I say, is included in the Senate bill, but it was removed when it was returned to the House, and it received unanimous approval by the Senate.

This is a commonsense clarification to the Tax Code to prevent lower income military personnel from being discriminated against when applying to live in affordable housing built under the low income housing tax credit. Our Nation's military families deserve access to safe, decent, affordable housing, and they should be given a fair opportunity to qualify for it.

This provision would clarify that members of the military will not have their military housing allowance counted against them as income when applying for affordable rental housing. The IRS does not consider military housing allowance as income, but, unfortunately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development does. The result is that some servicemembers, particularly enlisted ones, are considered to earn too much and are, thus, disqualified from living in affordable housing. Comparatively low-income civilians will qualify because they are treated differently by the IRS.

This clarification is needed now more than ever. A number of military installations across the country are experiencing housing shortages as a result the 2005 BRAC. For example, Fort Riley, an Army post located in the State of Kansas, is nearly doubling in size and will see an influx of nearly 30,000 people. Without access to adequate affordable housing opportunities, many families stationed at Fort Riley are being forced to live far away from post.

The House acted this year to exempt military housing allowance from income eligibility requirements under Head Start. Unfortunately, this discrimination persists when military families apply to live in affordable housing, and enlisted servicemembers and their families continue to be treated unfairly in communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, I again am here to object to the exclusion of language that would level the playing field for our military enlisted men. I have introduced legislation to correct this issue; and should it not be resolved in this legislation, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1481.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call upon Democratic leadership to bring legislation to the floor that will help our independent pharmacies stay in business. The last few years have been difficult for pharmacists across the United States, and many are struggling to keep their doors open due to changes in the Medicare Part D prescription program. In my Kansas district alone, we have lost four pharmacists since this government program went into effect.

Once again, we are asking pharmacists to bear the burden of our cost- cutting measures. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 made average manufacturers price, AMP, the new basis for the Medicaid Federal upper limit on multi-source, generic prescription drugs. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office released a report indicating that this new pricing system would reimburse pharmacists at 36 percent below what it costs them to buy the prescriptions. I ask you, how can we realistically expect anyone to do business like that?

We need to make changes quickly; otherwise, these pharmacies will no longer be around to serve customers. Here are some real life examples of Kansas pharmacists who are going to be negatively affected by this change if we do not act soon.

Many Medicaid patients in Kansas are in treatment for psychiatric conditions. Because of their mental state, they often forget to take their medications. Mike Conlin, a pharmacist in Topeka, has initiated a program in his pharmacy to help his psychiatric patients remember to take their medications by having his staff put the meds in a unit dosage device. This device allows his patients to see at a glance which medications are called for at any particular time of day. Mike stated it will be difficult to offer this individual treatment on a medication that pays him nearly 36 percent less in reimbursement than it actually costs his drugstore.

In other parts of the State, a great number of our community pharmacists double as the local nursing home pharmacist. Jim Hampton, of Atwood, Kansas, is one such pharmacist. The physicians and staff of the local Atwood home, depend on Jim to advise them daily on such issues as drug-to-drug interactions, new drugs and dosage regimens. While Jim finds great satisfaction in providing these medications and advice on their usage, he must reconsider his ability to serve these geriatric and developmentally disabled patients. And his decision is purely a business decision. Jim will be forced to decide whether his business can really afford to remain viable in selling a product for a price far less than he can acquire that product. Average manufacturer pricing is forcing Jim to do just that. And the ramifications of Jim's decision are far reaching.

In Phillipsburg, Kansas, there is a young disabled mother that recently gave birth to a child with a heart condition. She was without her Medicaid card yet urgently needed medication for the newborn infant. In fact, she was without a medical card of any type showing that insurance would pay for the medication. The local pharmacist, Rob Wenzl of Wenzl Drug, provided the infant her lifesaving drug. Rob did this despite the fact the new mom had no proof of coverage. Rob is just one more of many pharmacists in rural Kansas that are being forced to consider letting go of their Medicaid patients. The personalized service that Rob enjoys providing his patients, and that personalized care the patients receive, will potentially be eliminated should average manufacturer pricing as currently written be foisted upon our pharmacists.

Those of us in Congress take our responsibility seriously to stand up for those who are in trouble. I encourage my colleagues to listen to those pharmacists in their districts and encourage Democratic leadership to bring legislation to the floor to fix this problem.

Access to local pharmacies is important to a strong healthcare system and is, therefore, important to each and every one of us.

Madam Speaker, many of us on Capitol Hill have had the joy of knowing Captain Claude Alexander, but I would argue not enough of us. Too few have come to know this inspiring man, whose life was lived to the fullest, serving others. He lived for his family, his friends, and his country. In his death I hope people will hear his story and feel compelled to sacrifice for others as he did in his life.

A story that starts in my home state of Kansas stretches across the country and across the globe. After graduating from high school in Ulysses, KS, Claude enlisted in the U.S. Army. His training had only begun when after completing basic training, he found out he had been accepted into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Upon graduation, he completed Army Ranger training that proved indispensable during his time in Vietnam.

For his service in the harsh Vietnamese jungle, Captain Alexander was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for heroic actions. After his radio man was killed in an ambush, Captain Alexander pressed on to establish a forward communications position. This allowed for an attack helicopter to zero in on the attacking Viet Cong. His actions saved his troops' lives, but he sustained significant injuries, losing his leg and hearing in his left ear.

After sustaining such serious injuries some would give up. Some would say, ``I gave my all and that's all I have to give.'' Not Claude Alexander. He recovered and--despite an artificial leg--he lived an authentic life. After earning a master's degree in international relations from Columbia University, he came to Capitol Hill to work for another great Kansas veteran--Senator Bob Dole. Many issues in Congress are divisive, but it was agricultural issues that brought together Claude and his future wife Denise, who was working on the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

Following his time on Capitol Hill, Captain Alexander went on to a distinguished career representing Ralston Purina Corporation for almost 20 years. In retirement, he volunteered his time with wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, helping them realize they have a promising future even if it means living with a prosthetic. His life was a testament to this truth. He also worked as a consultant and was a member of the Missouri Kansas Forum and the Missouri and Kansas state societies. At state society banquets, Captain Alexander would often invite these wounded heroes to attend and be honored for their sacrifice.

Perhaps it was his prairie roots or growing up in the Wild West, but something lit a fire of passion for life and service in Captain Alexander that burned bright his entire life. This flame has been passed on to many people. He will be greatly missed by those he knew, and his legacy and spirit will be carried on to those who did not. My thoughts and prayers go out to Denise and their children Meg, Philip and Kevin during this time of loss.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for recognizing me.

This, as you can hear, is an important piece of legislation that is widely supported and praised here on the House floor today, but I am disappointed that the majority in the committee rejected an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) offered.

This amendment was a commonsense, bipartisan fix to the Tax Code to prevent lower-income military personnel and their families from being discriminated against when applying to live in affordable housing built under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.

A number of military installations across the country are experiencing housing shortages as a result of the 2005 BRAC. One of those facilities, Fort Riley, an Army post located in the State of Kansas, is nearly doubling in size and is now seeing an influx of 30,000 soldiers, civilian workers, and others.

When the new soldiers live off base, they receive a military housing allowance from the government that they use for payment of rent. Though the Tax Code does not treat the housing allowance as taxable income, it is considered income when determining a military family's eligibility to live in facilities financed with low-income housing tax credits. The result is that some servicemembers, particularly our enlisted men and women, are considered to earn too much income and are thus disqualified from living in affordable housing.

However, comparatively low-income civilians receiving section 8 housing vouchers from the Federal Government are more likely to qualify for this housing. This is because, unlike the military housing subsidy, the Tax Code exempts section 8 assistance from being considered income.

Our Nation's military families deserve access to safe, decent, and affordable housing; and they should be given a fair opportunity to qualify for it. The House acted in May to exempt military housing allowance from income eligibility requirements when qualifying for the Head Start program. The USDA's WIC nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children also provides for this exemption. Unfortunately, the discrimination persists when military families apply to live in affordable housing and enlisted servicemembers and their families continue to be treated unfairly in communities across the country.

I had hoped to offer amendment here today on the House floor to address this issue, but the procedure by which this bill is brought to the floor does not allow me that opportunity. I would urge and encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 1481, The

Military Access to Housing Act, to correct this inequality, and to encourage the leadership of this House to bring this measure to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the testimony and words as spoken by the gentleman from Illinois. I rise tonight to speak to congratulate Ross and Marianna Beach and the Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art on the occasion of the museum's grand reopening. Located in Manhattan, on the campus of Kansas State University, the Beach Museum of Art has become a cherished cultural center in the Flint Hills of my home State. Over the years, the museum has nearly tripled the number of their works of art and has enhanced the lives of thousands of patrons.

Originally opening on October 16, 1996, the museum offers a wide array of services to the area. While continually adding to the collection of regionally inspired art, the museum contributors have also made educational programs, lectures, tours, and workshops available. The new 15,000 square-foot addition of the Mary and Morgan Jarvis Wing is evidence of the museum's continuing success and benefit.

Believing in art appreciation and education, the Beach Museum is poised to contribute to the culture in Kansas for generations to come. The impact the museum has on Kansas is immeasurable. Located on the campus of a nationally ranked university and in close proximity to Fort Riley, the Beach Museum serves a highly diverse population. Students, along with military personnel and their families, come from all over the globe to live, work, and learn. This oftentimes short-term community is always pleased to discover an art museum of such fine quality.

Through the efforts of Kansas State University president Dr. Jon Wefald and his wife, Ruth Ann, the museum has gained national notoriety. Mrs. Wefald's leadership on the museum advisory board has proven to be a major factor in the museum's rapid growth and expansion.

The university, the City of Manhattan and the State of Kansas have benefited tremendously from the Wefalds' dedication. Gratitude is owed for their committed devotion to the museum. Museum director Lorne Render should be commended for guiding the museum into the 21st century. Through Lorne's service to the arts, the Beach Museum continues to offer exhibits and programs that enhance the quality of life of all Kansans and, in fact, many Americans. As the museum continues to contribute to the appreciation of the arts, appreciation should be extended to Lorne for the museum and the museum's knowledgeable staff.

The museum would not have been possible but for the generous philanthropic ideals exhibited by the lead donors, Ross and Marianna Beach. The Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art was named by Mr. Beach for his wife in commemoration of their 50th wedding anniversary. Mr. And Mrs. Beach are longtime donors of talent and treasure to the State of Kansas. Their commitments to the arts extend beyond the Beach Museum in Manhattan. They were instrumental in establishing the Beach/Schmidt Performing Arts Center on the campus of Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas. This center has been providing a venue for plays, speeches, debates, and concerts for more than 20 years. The Beachs' commitment to the arts extends across the State and is appreciated by Kansans from all walks of life.

My wife and I are proud to serve on the museum's board of visitors. We have witnessed, firsthand, the results Ross and Marianna Beach have attained. It is certain that the Beach legacy will be experienced by thousands of people for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in acknowledging the Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art along with Ross and Marianna Kistler Beach for their contributions to our society. Kansas is proud to have the museum for our enlightenment and enjoyment. And I am also proud to call Ross and Marianna Beach my friends and fellow Kansans.

Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives is considering an important piece of legislation. House Concurrent Resolution 25 expresses Congress's support for a goal that is an essential component in our attempt to achieve energy independence. That goal is to produce 25 percent of our Nation's energy needs from renewable resources by the year 2025. I support the goal enumerated in this concurrent resolution because it is not a blanket endorsement of any particular renewable. Instead, it is inclusive and accommodates all forms of renewable energy including all forms of biofuel and wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro energy.

In addition, House Concurrent Resolution 25 does not proclaim renewable resources are the sole solution to this United States energy crisis. Rather, it sets an ambitious, yet achievable goal for the renewable resources sector, while recognizing that in the next 20 years renewable resources will not be the only method necessary to meet our energy needs. The flexible, multifaceted nature of this concurrent resolution is the model for which this Nation should build its future energy policy.

The United States must look to alternative energy sources to meet our Nation's energy needs. In recent years, oil imports have soared. We now import approximately 60 percent of the oil used in this country. Some of these imports come from countries that have populations hostile to the United States and its citizens. The consequence of our reliance on imports of oil from volatile regions is that a portion of the money we spend to supply our energy needs may actually go to fund terrorist groups that wish to do us harm. Supplanting foreign oil imports with home-grown renewable

energy not only keeps economic activity in the United States, but is a vital component of national security.

As I previously stated, the 25 x '25 vision is an inclusive goal that strives to be responsible in its mission. The resolution does not endorse actions that will skew the marketplace. It calls for solutions that are ``practical'' and ``cost effective.'' The goal is not endorsed to the detriment of existing demands on our renewable resources. House Concurrent Resolution 25 states that in attaining the 25 percent benchmark, the Nation should ``continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.''

The resolution also advocates for an implementation strategy that is ``practical'' and ``cost effective.'' Congress should heed this advice. It must seek to accomplish the goal of House Concurrent Resolution 25, but it should not adopt policies that are enacted at the expense of one renewable resource over another or at the expense of preexisting domestic energy sources. We must find comprehensive solutions to our energy needs.

In the United States today we are seeing great progress in expanding the scope of renewable energy. One recent development that I believe will help us accomplish the goal of 25 x '25 is the conception of the cellulosic ethanol industry, an ethanol industry that utilizes non- grain based plant products to produce ethanol. In my home State of Kansas, it was recently announced that construction of one of the Nation's first industrial-sized cellulosic ethanol plants will begin in Hugoton, KS. I am proud that this monumental step in the biofuel industry is occurring in Kansas and I hope that this technology can continue to develop over time.

Although development of the cellulosic ethanol industry is a great achievement, we must realize that ethanol is not the only component needed to accomplish the 25 x '25 vision. Often overlooked are the contributions of wind and solar energy. To accomplish the goal of 25 x '25, it will take the contributions of all the Nation's citizens. Wind and solar projects may not only need to be welcomed into our communities but in some instances literally into our backyards. Emerging technologies are making small-scale wind and solar power a reality.

Also, lost in the debate is the need to conserve energy. The 25 x '25 goal is more easily achieved if we control our accelerated quest for more energy. If we can find an economical and technological means of increasing fuel economy in the cars and trucks we manufacture, it will be easier for biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel to capture a greater share of an existing market.

Finally, while I am an arduous supporter of renewable energy, we must not overlook traditional domestically produced energy sources. Congress must not punish existing and still feasible forms of domestic energy in its attempt to grow the renewable market. Although not directly implicated by the 25 x '25 goal, efficient development of renewable energy markets cannot proceed without existing forms of energy. For example, nitrogen fertilizer is a key component producing the corn from which ethanol is made. Most nitrogen fertilizer utilized in the United States is produced using natural gas.

The vision embodied by House Concurrent Resolution 25 is a goal that Congress should support and the American people should work to achieve. Utilizing renewable resources in a responsible fashion is good for the environment, good for U.S. workers, and helps move the Nation toward energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, in large and small communities across our Nation, too many Americans find themselves placed in danger by the very people who are supposed to love them. It's estimated that 2 million acts of domestic violence take place each year in the United States. This is not just a problem for women; it's also a problem for children and a problem for men. We are doing no one any favors, least of all the abusers, by ignoring the problem.

I rise today to recognize October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. And while we make gains in raising the awareness about domestic violence and in providing assistance to the victims, the violence continues.

According to a recent survey in my home State of Kansas, one domestic violence act occurs every 28 minutes. One out of four women will be abused in their lifetime, and more than 3 million children will witness some form of violence at home each year.

Domestic violence brings fear, hopelessness and depression into the lives of every affected victim. One incident can create a cycle of despair that's difficult not only for the victim, but also for their families to overcome.

When a victim is abused, the abuse does not stay in the home, and, therefore, we cannot fight this battle only on one front. Domestic violence is often seen as a private issue. However, the suffering often follows victims at work and at school.

It is important that medical professionals, educators, law enforcement officers, and community leaders are trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of domestic violence. Everyone, not just the victim but their children who suffer and the abusers themselves, will be better off if we can put a firm and rapid stop to every single case of domestic violence.

It is also important to support domestic violence shelters. These agencies provide essential services, help advocate for victims, and spearhead efforts to increase domestic violence awareness throughout the country. Tonight I commend those who work every day to help victims of domestic violence, especially those who work in the nine service areas that I am aware of back home in Kansas in my district: Dodge City, Emporia, Garden City, Great Bend, Hays, Hutchinson, Liberal, Salina, and Ulysses.

We must not forget the role Congress has to play. Federal grants made under the Violence Against Women Act provide essential funds for shelter operations and support services. We must ensure that shelters and crisis centers receive sufficient funding to provide this safety net to some of our most vulnerable citizens.

October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, but we must fight domestic violence and address its consequences all year long. Through education, enforcement and support, we can continue working together to break the cycle of domestic violence and bring hope to victims so terribly affected by these acts.

Tonight, I pray for the end of violence within our families and for the healing of those who suffer.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time, and I am here to lend my support for the gentleman from Kansas' efforts in regard to once again disaster striking our State.

We come from a State, Mr. Tiahrt and I and the rest of the Members of the Kansas congressional delegation, that really has known tough times over a long history. But especially within the last few months, really within the last year, Kansas has had winter storms that involved hail and freezing rain, ice, snow, as well as tornados. Greensburg, Kansas, became a national location, known by people around the world for a tornado that destroyed an entire town, and now most recently a large portion of our State has been struck by tremendous rainfall resulting in flooding.

I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas' (Mr. Tiahrt) leadership in bringing attention to this plight that we face in our State.

In fact, there are 69 counties in the First Congressional District. All but four of them have been declared natural disaster areas this year, since January 1 by the President, and FEMA and other emergency responders are at work.

The encouraging thing about our State is that local folks respond, and we've seen tremendous efforts by individual citizens from across the State arriving to help their neighbors, and we've seen the collection plates passed on Sunday morning, money being raised, response being had, and we've had tremendous support from our law enforcement community, from our emergency preparedness officials, as well as State and Federal officials. In many instances, I would report that FEMA has responded in a very noble and adequate way, and we're very grateful for that help.

Again, all the disaster has caused many Members of Congress to stop and talk to us from Kansas and wish us well. We've had encouragement and support from leaders around the world, in fact, due to the tremendous natural disasters that have occurred.

And so I'm here to express my support for Mr. Tiahrt's efforts and let him know that we all care about the portion of the State that has now been affected by these floods and will work closely with him, following his leadership to see that the response is appropriate from the Federal Government and that Kansans once again rebound from this significant natural disaster.

I, too, would like to commend Coffeyville Resources for their response. It's caused significant losses within the community of Coffeyville. It's also had a consequence upon all Kansans. It's one of our three refineries, and so gas and diesel prices have been affected as a result of the closing, at least temporarily, of a refinery in our State. But their responses, both in getting back into business and their response to being a good corporate citizen within the community of Coffeyville, should be recognized.

And finally, I thank the support we have had from my colleagues here in the United States House of Representatives. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before the House that fixes a drafting error that has kept ranchers in Kansas from receiving important disaster assistance. My top priority this year has been to see that the agricultural producers in my district who have been devastated by extreme weather are given the support needed to stay on their feet and continue feeding our nation.

I was glad to see Congress recognize the importance of delivering disaster assistance to our country's hardest hit producers. I was not glad to see an error in the bill effectively prohibit ranchers from receiving this aid. A provision required ranchers to have participated in a particular insurance pilot program. The problem is that this pilot program does not exist.

Absent the fix we are making here today, some producers in Kansas, at no fault of their own, will not be in business come winter. In Kansas, we have struggled through 5 and 6 years of drought followed by last year's strong winter storms in December that caused 44 of Kansas' 105 counties to be declared natural disasters. And as you have all seen, tornadoes, hail and floods have now affected the rest of the State of Kansas. In total, 65 of the 69 counties I represent have been declared federal disaster areas this year.

I am grateful we are taking action to allow the intended disaster assistance to reach ranchers across the plains. The bill before us, the Senate version of a bill I introduced here in the House, will simply strike the one sentence in the disaster bill that is causing the problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I ask my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to address two important issues that USDA provides in serving my farmers and ranchers in Kansas and across the country, the desire to see that those services are provided at the local level.

The first issue, although not very glamorous, is very important. It is the funding of nondiscretionary FSA technology expenses. This winter, many of my producers went to their local FSA office only to discover the computers were not working. In many instances they had to set aside all of the other computers so they could try to allow the farmers to access the computer system and sign up for the programs. The delays were for months.

In the President's budget, $23.8 million was requested for fixed IT operating expenses. Those operating expenses are required to operate and maintain FSA's existing computer system. In this bill the committee only appropriates $10 million. FSA does not have a choice in paying its fixed IT operating expenses. If sufficient funding is not appropriated, FSA will be forced to reduce its staff to keep its IT system operating, and I believe that would adversely affect the services provided by our local offices.

The second issue is our NRCS county offices. The bill we are considering today has two provisions halting county office closures for NRCS's sister agencies, FSA and Rural Development, RD. The primary reason for delaying county office closures is we are currently in the midst of writing a new farm bill. And while I am glad to see that this bill addresses the FSA and RD office closures, I would also like to see the same approach taken with NRCS.

I look forward to working with the chairwoman and the ranking member and I would ask for the chairwoman to enter into a colloquy with me to indicate her interest in this topic.

I thank the chairwoman and look forward to a successful conclusion.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to express my admiration of a Kansan's life--a life filled with honor and service to country, community and family. Mr. Robert ``Bob'' Layher of Hays, Kansas, a member of the ``Greatest Generation,'' lived life with integrity, passion and enthusiasm.

Like so many young Americans of his generation, Bob put country before self and joined the U.S. military. Bob proudly fought for freedom during World War II, though he began serving prior to the start of the war. He was among those who resigned their U.S. military positions in order to volunteer for a covert operation with the Chinese Air Force before the U.S. entered the war. For his service in China as a member of The Flying Tigers, Bob was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Bob's dedication to those he served with and his presentation of their memories was unsurpassed. While the history and service of The Flying Tigers is well known in China, few in our country know about the courage and heroism of these men. Bob took a lead role in making certain that his community knew about The Flying Tiger's mission of protecting China's important Burma Road from Japanese attacks.

He was also involved in national education of The Flying Tigers. Appearing in stories and presenting at schools, he shared the history of this brave group of volunteers. During trips back to the area where they were stationed, members of The Flying Tigers found the need for education about their group was much less necessary in China. The idea that Americans would volunteer to defend another country all for the sake of freedom made a great impression on the Chinese.

While Bob was born and raised outside of Kansas, our State was lucky to have him settle here and begin farming after his military service. Bob was born in Dallas, Oregon, on September 3, 1916. He graduated from the University of Colorado where he also met his wife, Marian. In 1941, 4 days before he left for China, he and Marian were secretly married. This was also the same day as his birthday, so this way Bob would never forget their anniversary.

A very involved member of his community, Bob participated in several civic groups. After he moved to Hays in 1952, Bob became a member of the First Presbyterian Church and the Order of the Eastern Star. He was also a member of the ISIS Shrine and the Masonic Lodge in Salina.

Most important to Bob was his family. Over the course of their 65 years of marriage, he and his wife were committed parents and grandparents. Bob's son, R.F. ``Bobby'' Layher Jr., followed in his father's footsteps and served as a pilot with United States Marine Corps. Even though Bobby went on to be a civilian pilot with Federal Express for 29 years, Bob and his son were still able to fulfill their dream of farming together.

In the many important roles Bob filled in his life, he served out of a sense of duty and not out of selfish ambition. He helped make his community better and his nation safer. I join his many friends and admirers in paying tribute to a great man. My thoughts and prayers go out to Marian and her family during this time of loss.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to express my respect and high regard for a Kansan who is truly a member of ``the Greatest Generation''--Mr. Pete Dlabal of Ellsworth. The time has come to recognize this man who has served his community and country while remaining devoted to his family.

Mr. Dlabal was born to a family that included nine brothers and sisters in one of the fine small towns I have the privilege of representing, Wilson, Kansas. Following his graduation from Wilson High School and the Wichita Business School, he joined the millions of other selfless young men of his generation and enlisted in the United States Army. After serving in the Army for four and a half years during World War II, he returned to Ellsworth County, Kansas.

Upon returning home, his service to his community continued, serving as the county treasurer for two years. He then began his tenure at the Ellsworth County Farmers Co-operative Union in 1949. In this position he would remain for 31 years, including 24 years as General Manager. In honor of his dedication and leadership, Mr. Dlabal was one of only four individuals inducted into the Kansas Cooperative Hall of Fame this past March.

It is no small task to manage a farmer's cooperative in Kansas. Long days and an unpredictable harvest can make the job a thankless one. Agriculture is the backbone of the Kansas economy. And Ellsworth County is squarely settled in the heart of farm country, bordered on all sides by the vast fields and pastures that make my state the breadbasket of America.

While employed at the Ellsworth Co-operative, Mr. Dlabal also took time to serve his community by volunteering in several civic organizations. Throughout his career he was a part of the Ellsworth County Commission, Ellsworth School board, Ellsworth Library board, FFA Advisory board, and the Knights of Columbus. In his industry, he served on the boards of the Farmers Union Jobbing Association, the Co- operative Marketing Association, the Farmers Marketing Company and the Kansas Farmers Service Association.

Mr. Dlabal exemplifies what a community leader is all about. However, his most important role has been as husband to Lillian for 58 years and father to Joan, Deborah, Angie and Pam. Through his role as a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Mr. Dlabal provides an example by living his own life through a set of high personal standards. He would not settle for doing anything that bent any rules; anything other than honesty was completely unacceptable to him.

Madam Speaker, this man has made Kansas a better place to live through his devotion as a community leader and family man. Mr. Pete Dlabal not only served in our military, but served the agriculture industry and farmers of central Kansas. Although he has made an immeasurable impact through his professional and personal life, he remains a humble individual. Today we take a moment to simply say ``thank you'' and wish him well in a much-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call the House of Representatives, the Congress, the administration, this country, to action.

Just this month, the price of oil hit $75 per barrel, and it seems that the proverbial, ``While Nero fiddles, Rome burns,'' in this case it is, ``While Congress fiddles, prices at the pump continue to escalate,'' with a tremendous consequence to the consumers across America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we address the energy policy, the energy needs of this country, in a comprehensive way. And although we have tried that on a number of occasions, it seems to me that our efforts have been less than what is required and need dramatic attention.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, tonight I call for a broad approach for what we do to reduce the price at the pump, and clearly conservation is a component of that. We need as a country to make certain that we have policies in place that encourage conservation, that we do not waste energy. And in fact this week I will cosponsor legislation that establishes CAFE standards to try to improve the efficiency of our automobile fleet done in a way, Mr. Speaker, that is satisfactory, provides common sense and good scientific basis for the direction we need to go, something that is not unreasonable but is workable for the automobile industry and for the consumer.

Clearly, renewable fuels is an important component. We in Kansas have a lot to offer when it comes to renewable fuels, particularly as we have moved in the direction of ethanol and biodiesel. But I call for greater action, particularly in the area of cellulosic renewable fuels, cellulosic ethanol in which we can utilize the waste product of agriculture to meet our country's energy needs and not compete with the food supply and the use of corn, for example, to feed livestock.

Renewable fuels matter greatly to rural America, but they matter greatly across the country. It is about jobs in rural communities and about utilization of our agricultural production, and it is about the environment, and it is about trying to do something about the tremendous burden we face in importing oil.

Mr. Speaker, I also propose that we encourage greater exploration and production. Too often in this country we have an attitude that says we cannot drill and explore in our backyard, and yet we complain about the price of fuel. The opportunity continues to exist in this country to explore and find greater oil and natural gas and utilize our reserves. It also is an opportunity for us to pursue other sources of energy such as clean coal technologies and nuclear power. Again, we take so many things off the table and then complain that we can't afford the price.

Finally, I ask that we pursue once again increasing our refining capacity. The last refinery in this country was built in 1976. In Kansas in the 1980s we had 14 refineries in our State. Today we have three, and one of those three was closed because of flood waters. The consequence was a 14-15 cent increase in the price of gasoline per gallon.

It is time that we develop the capacity to meet the consumers' needs. Mr. Speaker, just last year in 2006 we spent $218 billion in purchasing oil from countries abroad, countries whose political circumstances are volatile, countries who have joined together to make certain that they control the supply and increase the price, and yet it seems we do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is clear to me that our national security is harmed by our policy, or lack of policy. It is clear to me that the economic consequences of our failure, of our fiddling while Rome burns is dramatic.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the leadership of this House to pursue policies of a broad, comprehensive approach to reducing our dependence upon foreign oil and making a difference for the consumer in the United States, improving our economy, and increasing our national security.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the current system of administering pay increases for Members of Congress. Since I was first elected by Kansans to represent them in our Nation's capital, I have opposed the hidden process by which Members of Congress receive an annual pay raise.

Right now, the House Agriculture Committee is reauthorizing the farm bill. For Kansans and rural citizens across the country, this is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation Congress will consider this year. Unfortunately, the Democrat-crafted budget does not include enough funding to meet the needs of our Nation's agricultural producers, fulfill the environmental and conservation needs of our country and carry out food stamp and nutrition programs. Congress has been irresponsible with taxpayer dollars for too long and the limitless spending is catching up with us. Vital legislation, like the farm bill, that supports millions of Americans does not have the money available to it to meet the needs of our country.

Members of Congress should not receive a pay increase when the federal budget is this tight. Congress needs to follow the lead of American families and cut out spending that is unnecessary. We should begin today by cutting out the automatic pay raise for Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment today that I would like the Committee to consider, which is a prohibition against the expenditure of funds.

In the year 2000, this Congress passed legislation that altered our trading relationship with Cuba. That legislation, the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000, was put in place that would allow for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, and medicine to Cuba for cash in advance. That legislation was signed into law and was operational; and from that period of time, we have sold nearly $1.5 billion of agriculture commodities, food, and medicine to Cuba for cash in advance.

In the year 2005, the administration published a final rule clarifying the definition of cash payments in advance; and by that rule, it disrupted the sale of agriculture commodities, food, and medicine to Cuba. The change being that rather than payments in advance at the time the goods were delivered, the commodities were delivered in Cuba, the administration's rule requires that the payment be made before the commodities leave a United States port, a matter of days or weeks by advancing the payment.

This is contrary to our normal trading relationships, the norms within the international community, and has been disruptive and is an indication of our unwillingness to be a reliable provider of agriculture commodities to Cuba.

This amendment that I offer today prohibits the funding of the implementation or the enforcement of that rule promulgated by the administration in the year 2005, and so it would return us to the days following the passage of the original legislation, the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000, that would once again say that cash in advance is payment when the commodity arrives in port in Cuba. And this change in rules has had an effect upon our ability of American farmers and agriculture producers to supply, to sell, for cash the things we produce in this country, a detrimental effect upon the farm economy. It is estimated that exports fell approximately 10 percent in value from 2004 to 2005. Wheat, which is important in my home State of Kansas, was decreased by 18 percent; rice by 38 percent; cotton by 87 percent; lumber by 100 percent; dairy products by 55 percent; seafood by 100 percent; course grains by 74 percent; and poultry decreased by 27 percent. And the goal is to try to restore those markets, once again be a more reliable supplier of food to the Cuban people, and to make certain that American agriculture is not harmed by our policy or is harmed less by our policy.

These are unilateral sanctions, Mr. Chairman, as you know. And unilateral sanctions are probably not effective in and of themselves when it is only the United States that fails to trade with Cuba. So, again, a rather modest modification in our policy, changing it to the days of the policies enacted by Congress before the administration changed the rules.

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

Mr. Chairman, again I would point out that this amendment today does not change the law and that all sales to Cuba must be for cash in advance. There is no agricultural credit through the United States Government that can be offered to Cuba to assist in the sale of purchases by Cuba nor can any U.S. financial institution be engaged in the activity leading up to the sale of these commodities to Cuba.

So we do not change the law. It is simply a matter of definition. And at least in my estimation, the definition was changed for purposes of making those sales less likely to Cuba, thereby harming farmers, ranchers, and producers across the United States.

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

I have no further speakers.

I would ask the gentleman from Florida if he has additional speakers or wishes to allow me to close.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies.

Again, I would ask for adoption of this amendment. I offered the amendment on the House floor in July of 2000 that ultimately resulted in the passage of the Trade Sanctions Reform Act.

I admit that I came here in support of farmers in Kansas who thought it was useful to them and beneficial to them economically to be able to sell to Cuba. And over time, I have tried to examine this issue, and it has become something broader. I think there is a greater benefit in the efforts to change the nature of Cuba and to enhance the opportunities that Cubans have for greater personal freedom by an economic relationship between our two countries.

And so, although it was initially an economic issue with me and it remains important to the agriculture community, I think it also benefits the opportunity that we can enhance Cubans for greater freedom and personal liberty within their own country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.