Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has spent over 37 years in public service, including 20 years in my district in beautiful Newport, Oregon.

I am speaking, of course, about Don Mann, who recently retired as general manager of the Port of Newport after 18 years at the helm. Don's tenure at the Port was marked by significant changes that will reverberate in that region for years to come. His leadership and vision are beginning to make the central Oregon coast an economic hub.

Don led the charge, putting together the proposal that relocated NOAA's Pacific Marine Operations to Newport, Oregon, against all odds and some pretty big cities to the north. It is an incredible achievement that cannot be understated.

Not to rest on his laurels, Don has continued to work hard improving the international Port of Newport, which will also provide significant economic development for that region.

I just want to say, Don, it has been a pleasure working with you. I have enjoyed it immensely. Your tireless work on behalf of Oregonians is recognized. I wish you and Carolyn all the best in retirement.

Take care, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I guess for some people, you just can't do enough. I would argue, respectfully, to a lot of my colleagues that the work that has gone on on both sides of the aisle over the last 2 years is actually pretty exemplary.

The farm bill is always a difficult bill to pass. I believe the last one was vetoed a couple of times, and it had to be overwritten.

This bill, we are not at that point. But we have had a lot of bumps along the road, and it could be better. It could be better. But I have never yet seen legislation as exactly what I would preferably like to be voting on at the end of the day.

We make huge strides in this bill. There were draconian cuts to the SNAP and food stamp program that are no longer in here. There were onerous requirements and incentives to get people off food stamps that are no longer in here.

And for those that say people are automatically going to be cut as a result of this, that is not accurate. If the States step up and actually put $20 towards the heating assistance for these low-income folks that hopefully need that, they don't get a reduced benefit. And, yes, it is a reduced benefit. They still qualify for their base benefit in this bill. Moreover, if they just bring their heating and cooling bills in, they can still get the expanded benefit; it just requires a little more diligence. Hopefully, it puts some faith in America that their food stamp and SNAP programs are going to those who really need it.

As far as the subsidies go--hey, maybe we should change that; we should work on that some more. There will be another farm bill in 4 or 5 years. But we have made huge strides. We get rid of the direct payments program. That is monumental, folks. We have been trying to do that for 20 years.

The subsidies, the milk program, it is a totally new one. We are on a marginal insurance program. I think America understands that type of thing.

We have made huge strides here, and there are so many good things. For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I mean, at the end of the day, it is pretty imperative that we have made huge strides in the specialty crop provisions, the organic provisions. We have done great with market access promotion programs. We have made it so that American farmers continue to produce the best food and fiber with a safety net that makes sure that the people in this country get the food they need and deserve and can do the best economically on the global trade scene.

I think this is a great opportunity. People here should be voting ``yes'' on this bill after all the hard bipartisan work.

Mr. Speaker, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, which I have the privilege of representing, was terminated by the Federal Government in 1954. At that time, they not only lost their Federal recognition, but also its original reservation of over 60,000 acres.

In the decades that have ensued, members of the tribe have worked tirelessly to rebuild that Grand Ronde community. As was stated before, in 1983 these efforts resulted in the Grand Ronde Restoration Act, followed by the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988, which restored nearly 10,000 acres of the tribe's original reservation to the Grand Ronde people.

Since restoration, the tribe has continued their pursuit of securing its sovereignty by acquiring additional parcels of its original reservation and providing much-needed on-reservation jobs and services to tribal members.

Unfortunately, the tribe's efforts have been hampered by a lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome BIA process, as you have heard. After the tribe acquires a parcel of land in fee, the tribe must prepare a fee- to-trust application package for BIA. The BIA then processes this application, either as an on-reservation or off-reservation acquisition.

Because the tribe does not have exterior reservation boundaries, all parcels are, therefore, processed under the much more rigorous and oftentimes unneeded off-reservation acquisition regulations, even if the parcel is located within the original boundaries of the reservation.

I introduced H.R. 841 to correct this problem and streamline the bureaucratic process the tribe continues to face as it brings parcels of land into trust. Under my legislation, any property located within the boundaries of the tribe's original reservation will be treated as ``on-reservation'' land for the purpose of processing acquisitions of property into trust, and deemed a part of the tribe's reservation once taken into trust.

Once enacted, H.R. 841 will not only save the Grand Ronde time and money, which could be better utilized serving their community and membership, but would also streamline the BIA's land-into-trust responsibilities to the Grand Ronde, thus saving taxpayer money.

There is no opposition in my State by State officials or local governments, and CBO scores this as no cost to the Federal Government. I am proud to say that H.R. 841 has the delegation's support, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' support, and unanimous support from the two counties affected by the legislation.

I want to thank my Oregon colleagues in particular for their continued support and efforts to move this bill forward; and, frankly, I would personally like to thank Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and Representative DeFazio for their assistance in moving this important legislation forward and the tireless efforts that their staffs have put forward, particularly Travis Joseph and Chris Fluhr. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Grand Ronde who have been very, very, very patient throughout this whole process.

With that, I ask Members of the House for their support for this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a significant milestone for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. This Friday, November 22, 2013, marks the 30th anniversary of the Grand Ronde Tribe's restoration as a federally recognized tribe.

The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde consist of nearly 30 different historic Indian tribes who lived in western Oregon, southern Washington, and northern California. This confederation of tribes was created almost 160 years ago when the Federal Government forced these tribes onto the Grand Ronde Indian Reservation in order to make room for the expanding settler population. Before the settlers arrived on the west coast, there were more than 60 tribes living within the Oregon stretch of the Pacific Ocean. These tribes resided in their homelands for over thousands of years.

As more and more settlers flowed into Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River Valleys, they began to overwhelm the land that had once belonged to the tribes. Conflict ensued. By the 1850s the United States Government, in an effort to end conflict and open up land for settlers, initiated treaty-making with the antecedent tribes and bands of Grand Ronde.

The United States and the Kalapuya and Molala Tribes, among others, entered into the Willamette Valley Treaty. With this treaty, the United States seized much of the Willamette Valley while promising money, supplies, education, health care, and protection to the Indians.

As a result of the Willamette Valley treaty and six other treaties ceding about 14 million acres, over 2,000 tribal people were removed from their native homelands and forced to resettle on the Grand Ronde Indian Reservation in the Yamhill Valley. At that time, the reservation consisted of more than 60,000 acres of land.

Before the arrival of the settlers, there were 20,000 native people living in the Willamette Valley. When the tribes were forced onto the reservation, there were 2,000. At the dawn of the 20th century, there were only 302 people listed on the Grand Ronde Reservation census. Many people had died as a consequence of the administrative neglect or had moved away from the reservation to find better opportunities for work in the cities.

By 1944, the United States Government found itself between a depression and a war. Seeking to cut government spending, they began to terminate their treaty responsibilities to Indian tribes and began the process of ending the United States' relationship with the tribe.

In 1954, Congress passed the Western Oregon Indian Termination Act, which terminated treaties the government had entered into in the 1850s. As a result of that act, the Grand Ronde Indian Reservation was closed. By this time, the tribe had been calling the reservation home for over 100 years. Along with losing their homes, people lost their access to health care, education, and other services the Federal Government promised to provide them in the treaties with the tribes. The Federal Government reneged on its promise to the tribes of a ``permanent reservation forever.''

Although the Grand Ronde people were once again driven from their land, they refused to surrender their cultural identity and traditions. In the 1970s, members of the Grand Ronde reservation community united to form the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Indians to fight for their right to be recognized by the United States Federal Government.

After years of dedication and persistent efforts by tribal members, the United States Congress finally restored its relationship with the tribe on November 22, 1983, passing the Grand Ronde Restoration Act signed by President Ronald Reagan. This act, following nearly 30 years of termination, allowed the tribe to be eligible again for Federal housing, health, and education services. It also initiated a process that would lead to the Grand Ronde Reservation Act and the tribe's recovery of almost 10,000 acres of its original reservation.

Since restoration, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde has thrived, becoming one of the most successful and vibrant tribes in the Pacific Northwest. With their own money, they have reacquired parts of their original reservation. The population of the tribe has grown from roughly 1,500 members a year after restoration to almost 5,000 members.

Grand Ronde boasts a stable economy that is rooted in timber and tribal gaming. The Spirit Mountain Casino on the Grand Ronde reservation has been responsible for a significant part of the tribe's income since the mid-1990s. Spirit Mountain is the most successful casino in Oregon and also the largest employer in Polk County, employing more than 1,200 people. Grand Ronde dedicates 6 percent of casino profits to its Spirit Mountain Community Fund. The fund, which supports a diverse array of charitable organizations in Oregon, has given more than $60 million to local communities, nonprofit organizations, and Oregon's Indian tribes since 1977.

The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde emerged from over a century of hardship to become a thriving community. There can be no doubt that the people of Grand Ronde will continue to prosper, as they have done on this land for a thousand years.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to put all this in perspective. U.S. sugar policy from the 2008 farm bill has been very, very successful. As a matter of fact, the committees of jurisdiction both on the House and Senate side decided not to alter the sugar provisions in the 2013 farm bills passed by both the House and the Senate. As a matter of fact, this has been argued, as we have heard, again and again. This amendment and amendments similar to this have been rejected each time.

This would be a very damaging amendment at a time when American farmers are already hurting. This is exactly the inappropriate time to go after American jobs. These guys would end up going bankrupt, and I don't think you want to sacrifice existing American jobs with the hope that some new jobs might be created.

The other thing that is missing here is the acknowledgment that the Secretary of Agriculture already has the authority to increase U.S. sugar imports if there is an emergency. So why do we need this instruction? I don't get it.

The other point, if we are going to get back to some semblance of regular order in the conference process, since the House and Senate farm bills are identical here, this should not even be conferenceable at the end of the day. I think it is out of order and inappropriate.

Right now, Mexico, as has been stated, is well subsidized. Twenty percent of their production is outright subsidized, owned by their government, is driving sugar prices in the tank for Americans. That is not right. This should be WTO conferenceable at the end of the day.

This is the wrong time to go about trying to end a policy that has worked great for the last 12 years and finally is paying off for those sugar producers, sugar farmers, and all the sugar beet seed growers in my district that need a little help in this tough, tough time. I think if you are in favor of supporting a good balance of trade, supporting American agriculture, supporting the American taxpayer, at the end of the day, you do not want to vote in favor of Pitts amendment. I urge its defeat.

I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing a bipartisan and actual job-creating piece of legislation to the Chamber in these highly divisive times. This is the type of legislation we should be talking about.

Mr. Chairman, rural counties across America, not just in my home State of Oregon, are dying. Unemployment is still in the double digits as you've heard. Schools are closing. Infrastructure is deteriorating, and crime is increasing. There is really no recovery in rural America. The dwindling amount of county funding from our national forests and Secure Rural Schools system has left local governments unable to afford even the basic services that every American should have. They are making our communities unhealthy and unsafe. In Oregon, we currently have two counties going bankrupt while we stand idly by. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Moreover, due to the lack of proper active management, our forests are diseased, dying, and overstocked, leaving them susceptible to the catastrophic wildfires we have been seeing on TV every night this past summer and fall.

In this year alone, the U.S. Forest Service has spent over $1 billion in fighting forest fires. These wildfires not only burn millions of acres of public and private forests every year, but they cause serious harm to the environment--water, air quality--and to our public health. The Biscuit Fire in Oregon in 2002 alone produced as much as one-third of all the carbon released through fossil fuel burning in Oregon annually. That cannot continue.

Title III of H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan solution to a unique set of Oregon forestlands that was drafted by me and my colleagues, Congressmen DeFazio and Walden. The Oregon and California Railroad lands, commonly known as the O&C lands, have a unique mandate which differs from other BLM and Forest Service lands. It requires them to generate revenue for 18 Oregon counties from sustainable timber harvest. However, due to tedious and continued litigation, harvest levels are now 90 percent below what they were in the nineties. No one is asking to go back to the seventies or eighties, folks. That's not the issue despite what you'll hear. These are lands that are meant to produce timber in a sustainable way. The Federal law requires it, actually, and the legislation we wrote does it in an environmentally sound manner.

Along with a reliable amount of timber and revenue for our counties, I would like to remind everyone that title III also designates 90,000 acres of new wilderness protections and 150 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers. The bill places over 1 million acres of old growth into protection and creates a conservation fund to help take care of it. The underlying bill also extends a lot of the popular forestry programs like stewardship, contracting, and good neighbor authority.

You're going to hear a lot of misinformation about this bill and outright falsehoods. Contrary to what our opponents claim, title III guarantees ESA and clean water protections, which have worked for decades on Oregon's State and private forestlands. It has extensive riparian protections, and it restricts pesticide use. Most importantly, it protects our most green and renewable natural resource for generations to come, and it puts certainty back into the woods for our rural communities and job creators.

Title III of this bill would create over 15,000 direct and indirect jobs by itself. The underlying bill would create over 200,000 jobs nationwide. When folks are still struggling to find jobs and to put food on the table, we cannot deny them this opportunity to work. The families and their communities depend on it.

I am also very encouraged to know that Senator Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is also working on a parallel plan to help fix our broken rural economies and revive our unhealthy forests. We plan to work in a bicameral and a bipartisan fashion to come to a final solution that will provide revenue for our counties, clean up our unhealthy forests, and get people back to work in the woods.

Columbia County

Board of Commissioners,

St. Helens, OR, September 16, 2013.

Hon. Peter DeFazio.

Hon. Greg Walden.

Hon. Earl Blumenauer.

Hon. Kurt Schrader.

Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.

Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are

writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring

Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you

vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR

1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for

the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,

improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic

wildfires.

Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to

federal policies that have strangled sustainable management

of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five

percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in

overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526

would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest

Service lands, would allow significant state and local

involvement, and would separately address management of the

unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution

crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The

bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire

mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.

The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in

2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our

Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the

SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest

management and a return to shared revenues from forest

management. These revenues would provide schools with

substantial funding and support public safety, road

maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management

and restoration of the nation's forests will generate

tremendous environmental and social benefits and create

desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.

Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools

and for your consideration of this request.

Henry Heimuller,

Chair.

Anthony Hyde,

Commissioner.

Earl Fisher,

Commissioner.

Jeff Dickerson,

Sheriff.

Steve Atchinson,

District Attorney.

I thank the gentleman.

It is with a pretty heavy heart that I am on the floor here today. This should have been a high point. I listened to the good chairman and even to the Rules Committee chairman about this being the way to get the bill to conference. I've heard people say this is the only way to get this bill to conference. We had another way, and that got sabotaged.

I guess the point I'd make to this body and to the people at home is that some of us are listening to you. The most important thing is for us to work together. That's what I hear back home. They don't know about the details of all of this policy.

Colleagues, how a bill gets to conference is as important as getting it to conference. Doing it with one party ramrodding it through, without listening to half of America, is just wrong. This is anathema to what America wants to see happen. We are ceding our authority to the Senate and to the President. The Senate will never take this up, and the President has said he will veto this bill. Why not go back and work together? That was the message of 2 weeks ago. We got it wrong. That's the legislative process. It's not pretty. We should have gone back and worked together. As you've heard, Democrats are willing to work with our Republican colleagues for a good piece of legislation.

I am proud of the American Farm Bureau, of the National Farmers Union, and of others who still oppose this bill because we are not working together. This is a travesty, and they recognize it. American agriculture is under siege. The world economy, global competition--it's gotten scary out there. Now they are under siege from their own Congress.

Colleagues, that is unacceptable to all of us. We can do better. America deserves better. I ask my colleagues to research and check their hearts, to vote their consciences and to search their moral compasses. Let's work together and defeat this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of John Percin, Jr. one of the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshot firefighters killed June 30th while fighting a wildfire near the town of Yarnell, Arizona. A funeral mass to honor his life will take place, July 12th, for family, friends, and parishioners at Our Lady of the Lake Church in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

John Percin Jr. grew up in West Linn, Oregon among a community that witnessed a young man active in his school, excelling at numerous sports, and demonstrating a strong compassion for others. After graduating from West Linn High School, Mr. Percin pursued a career with the Granite Mountain Hotshots, an elite firefighting force based in Prescott, Arizona. Hotshots demand only the most physically fit candidates to face the most strenuous firefighting tasks. Through rigorous physical and mental training each Hotshot gains the skills and attributes necessary for this demanding and dangerous work. A Hotshot needs to be a problem solver, able to make difficult decisions in stressful situations, and work as part of a team; I think we witnessed these attributes on display June 30th from Mr. Percin and each of the courageous crewmembers who put their lives on the line to protect others.

John Percin Jr. demonstrated a level of courage and bravery that belies his young age. At only 24 years of age Mr. Percin had the drive and passion to perform the critical work of fighting fires and I am humbled by his commitment to our country. We in Congress express our gratitude to Mr. Percin and convey our deepest respect and sympathy to his family; their son's sacrifice for others will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Aurora Colony Historical Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The Aurora Colony Historical Society, through its wonderful Old Aurora Colony Museum, has dedicated itself to preserving the memory, architecture, and treasures of Oregon's unique Aurora Colony since 1963.

The Aurora Colony's unique history predates Oregon's statehood. This communal Christian society was established in 1856 by a group of German and Swiss followers of Dr. Wilhelm Keil. Dr. Keil's vision of a utopian society produced this bustling community that became well known for its craftsman built furniture, fine textiles, and Old World traditions.

54 families and nearly 600 people would eventually live and work communally to support the Aurora Colony. The agricultural skills and manufacturing prowess of the colonists allowed the colony to flourish for nearly 30 years on the banks of Oregon's Pudding River. The community of Aurora still bears the name of Dr. Keil's oldest daughter today.

Descendants of the Aurora Colonists organized a celebration in 1956 to mark the Colony's centennial and to celebrate the community's uncommon history. From this celebration came a desire to preserve the history of the Colony and its remaining artifacts and architecture. The Aurora Colony Historical Society was founded in 1963 and set out on a mission of preservation that survives today--50 years later.

Today the Aurora Colony Historical Society's Old Aurora Colony Museum welcomes tourists, students, researchers, and others to explore its extensive grounds and exhibits. The complex of five preserved buildings offers revolving exhibits, Colony artifacts, and a historical archive of residents' letters and other written documents. The Old Aurora Colony Museum has become an invaluable resource in preserving an important period in Oregon's history. Indeed, Oregon's history books and today's Aurora would both be incomplete were it not for the essential work of the Aurora Colony Historical Society.

With a strong sense of its history and an eye toward the future, I am confident that the Aurora Colony Historical society will continue to thrive for at least another 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be the representative of the fine community of Aurora, Oregon. I congratulate the Aurora Colony Historical Society on its 50th anniversary, and I look forward to sharing in the celebration.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the Adjutant General for the State of Oregon, Major General Raymond F. Rees, for his steadfast service to this Nation. On Saturday, July 13, 2013 Major General Rees will conclude over 50 years of dedicated service to the United States of America.

General Rees began his career as a West Point Cadet in 1962. Prior to his current assignment as the longest serving wartime Adjutant General in Oregon history, Major General Rees had numerous active duty and Army National Guard assignments to include: service in the Republic of Vietnam as a cavalry troop commander; commander of the 116th Armored Calvary Regiment; nearly nine years as the Adjutant General of Oregon; Director of the Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau; over five years service as Vice Chief, National Guard Bureau; 14 months as Acting Chief, National Guard Bureau; Chief of Staff (dual-hatted), Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). NORAD is a binational, Canada and United States command.

Major General Rees has demonstrated a level of competence, confidence, courage and commitment to the State of Oregon and the United States of America that bring great credit upon himself, the Oregon National Guard and the United States Army. We in Congress express our gratitude to a great American warrior and wish the General and his wife Mary Len a happy and well-earned retirement to their ranch in Helix, Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that we've got a deficit problem. I think most Americans agree with that. But I don't think most Americans would agree that we balance our deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable people out there, particularly the children. As was alluded to a moment ago by my good friend from Wisconsin, half the people on food stamps are children. They didn't get a job. They're still hungry.

The other point I think that is well-known by Americans is that while unemployment may have gone down, there's a lot of underemployed people and there are a lot of people that have given up searching for work because the recession lingers.

The real world is that the SNAP program is a lagging indicator. People struggle. They try and keep their job, they go into savings, they rely on friends; and then after several years, they lose their house, maybe they've already lost their job, and then they need food stamps.

I think it's egregious that we would deny them that.

There may be some inefficiencies in the program. We've been working on that for years. There's an error rate in my home State of Oregon that we're proud to say we've driven down. We were guilty of not overseeing the program. That's been driven down. We should be rewarding good behavior, not penalizing it at the end of the day.

I still have over 20 percent of my folks in Oregon that are on food stamps, and that has not changed. That's not because they're glad to be on food stamps. My folks want a job. They want to be able to feed their own families. But the real world is this was a horrible recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and you don't balance that budget on the backs of these kids.

If we had had a chance to vote on another food stamp bill that may have gotten down to the Senate levels of reductions, I think you wouldn't see some folks here worried about it. But this is the only game in town in trying to protect vulnerable Americans.

There's other ways to cut the program. The direct payments that we did in the Agriculture Committee, that's the way to go about it, not with the most vulnerable population.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am in support of the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that's long overdue. I join in support of my colleague and friend from Washington State to lend a little rationality to the discussion about how we operate in our forests.

This legislation hopefully would not be necessary. As the gentlewoman alluded to, we've had a Supreme Court decision that would seem to indicate that the EPA rule for the last 37 years has been a good rule. Indeed, agriculture and forestry aren't classically nonpoint source polluters. They are not a factory; they are not a municipality's sewer system. They are nonpoint source emitters, if you will. I think that's the way to look at this. When you have a decision by the Supreme Court, I think it's time to hopefully verify that decision.

The concern I have and the reason why this legislation is necessary is that, while it agreed that the rule should stand, it did not really rule on the merits of the issue. We're already facing additional lawsuits from different organizations that have a misguided view of what actually goes on in the forest system.

And I find it particularly egregious that when there is a great concern about forest runoff, agricultural runoff into our streams and our rivers, that when the industry steps up and does the right thing by pushing culverts, making the roads safer and cleaner, dumping that stuff onto the forest floor, not in the river, that they get sued and asked to come up with additional permits that would cost jobs and not help us get out of this Great Recession.

So I am a strong proponent of this amendment--I think it will get overwhelming support in this great, august body--and look forward to bringing it forward.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

I yield the last 1 minute to the other gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

With all due respect, the good and gentlelady from Indiana is completely and totally misinformed as to what this Christmas tree checkoff bill does.

If we were to strip this out of the FARRM Bill, millions of Americans would lose jobs. This is about protecting American agriculture. I did not see the gentlelady or any of her friends on the other side of the aisle get up and talk about the beef checkoff program or the dairy checkoff program or the cotton checkoff program, all of which help to promote American industry and American jobs and American research.

With all due respect, the idea that this is a tax is absolutely ludicrous. This is a fee that the industry has come to us for, just like the cattlemen did, just like the cotton growers did, and just like the dairymen did, to help promote their industry.

Perhaps the gentlelady is unaware of the fact that the Christmas tree industry is under siege in this country. What's more American than Christmas? You know what's happening? The Chinese are exporting to our country, and we are importing fake Chinese trees. It's devastating the American industry right now. We can be in favor of Chinese jobs, or we can be in favor of American agriculture jobs and silviculture jobs.

This is pretty straightforward, folks. This is something that's not new. It's been done for years and years. With all due respect again, the gentlelady's talking points talk about this Christmas season--well, I don't think it's Christmas season. We are now into June. It's time to get updated and understand where this country is coming from.

American agriculture has worked hard trying to stay competitive. What are the States that are going to be affected if we don't do this? What are the States that are going to be affected? We've got North Carolina. We've got Tennessee. We've got Michigan. We've got Washington. We've got Oregon. I could go on. Pennsylvania. All 50 States produce Christmas trees.

This industry needs to survive. This is an American industry producing Christmas trees. I'm shocked actually, that there's anyone that is willing to take this off the agenda.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

I would again like to continue to set the record straight.

The American people did not vote in any, way, shape or form on this promotion research program for American Christmas trees. If they had, I think they would vote in favor of American agricultural jobs in rural America.

I don't know if the gentlelady knows this, but the unemployment rate in rural America is easily still in the double digits. This is an industry that needs severe help and our time. If the American government can't come to their aid by letting them assess themselves a fee that is overwhelmingly supported by the industry to keep it alive, to keep it producing American jobs, I don't know what our government is all about at the end of the day.

This should be a straightforward ``no'' vote on this amendment.

As a matter of fact, this was so noncontroversial in the Agriculture Committee on which I serve, that it passed unanimous en bloc. This was not a controversial issue. So I guess I'd like to think we've moved forward out of the election season. It's now time to get real. It's now time to put some jobs on the table for Americans, particularly in rural America.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I guess what I would like to close with here is that I can't say it often enough and more accurate enough, that this is nothing about taxation. This is about the promotion of an industry that we would like to support in America: Christmas. What's more American than Christmas? I can't believe the opposition is seeking to attack Christmas and Christmas tree producers.

It's tough out there. The recession isn't over. The recession isn't over in rural America right now. Over 70 percent of the folks in the Christmas tree industry easily favor this bill. I'd love to see my approval rating come even up to 15 percent or 20 percent. These guys are at 70 percent wanting to get something done.

I think we owe it to them to back them. The producers across this country need our help. We did it for beef. We did it for dairy. We've done it for cotton. We've done it for a number of other industries. I don't see why Christmas trees should be discriminated against and we should be encouraging Chinese jobs and Chinese fake trees in our Christmas tree pageants. I think that's terrible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

We've collaborated on a number of endeavors, most recently in the Ag Committee. There was great bipartisan debate in the Agriculture Committee. I commend to those late-night insomniacs for their 11-hour viewing enjoyment, come watch how a real committee should work in the Congress of the United States, where there's give-and-take, people hold strong positions, but at the end of the day the process moves forward.

I would like to echo my friend and colleague's comments here. The Problem Solvers caucus, of which we're all members, is an outgrowth of the No Labels movement that's been going on for several years. Late last year, No Labels approached a number of us in Congress about getting together and were we truly interested in solving problems.

I think the thing that got all of our attention is it wasn't giving up who you were, it wasn't giving up your philosophy. We have extreme right members, we have extreme left members, and we've got some of our centrists, or as my colleagues like to call it, squishy people, in the middle. And that's not a bad thing, necessarily.

But what we are all about is solving problems, not dealing with the minutia, the differences that we have, dealing with all these one-off issues that our constituents don't send us to Congress to deal with, but we are trying to

deal with bigger issues. The GAO, or General Accounting Office, sends us information every year about things that should be fixed in Congress--nonpartisan, bipartisan issues that we should be addressing. The No Labels group is starting to pick those things up.

As the gentleman from Florida talked about, there's a plethora of issues upon which we can agree. The mark of a true statesman, I think, is not focusing on what you disagree on with your colleagues but what you can agree on. I think that, and some of the bigger issues that, hopefully, we'll go forward on and the No Labels group will be attacking, you'll see us also start to look at some of the reforms of the process.

I alluded to the Ag Committee the other day. There are ways to make this process work here and make America proud and, as we've heard so far, restore faith in your government once again.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

I'm very pleased to offer the only real bipartisan amendment to this bill, and maybe one of the few bipartisan amendments we'll see this Congress. I hope not.

This is actually an attempt to rectify some of the deficiencies in the underlying bill. I certainly don't agree with the findings. As has been pointed out, the lack of a budget at this point in time is because of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Congress, frankly, is to blame for that. The President usually starts his budget in November or December, and that was impossible.

Also, I think there's a little revisionist history regarding the debt that the President did inherit. Almost one-half to two-thirds of that $1 trillion he inherited from the previous administration and previous Congresses.

Nevertheless, we do have a huge debt, and the deficit problem needs adjusting and addressing. The only bipartisan solution to that has been put forward by Simpson-Bowles. This has had widespread recognition by folks here in Congress, folks outside of Congress, businessmen and - women, as a possible solution to a long-term, unified approach to our debt and deficit. The tenets of that, of course, deal with the tax expenditures that we have and the health care costs that are going up.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my respected colleague from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen.)

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the discussion here. I hope that America would know this is a bipartisan amendment. America should be pleased that some Republicans and some Democrats are coming together to solve our country's problems.

The good chairman from Georgia is unfortunately misinformed regarding Simpson-Bowles. It did include, of course, a great deal of discussion on health care and health care costs. The ACA, contrary to some misconceptions, actually saved over $700 billion in taxpayer money over the long haul.

I think at this point in time, the President, whose own debt commission was Simpson-Bowles, would be pleased to have a little direction from the ultimate appropriating budget body, which is Congress, not the President. Give him some direction; enable his commission to guide us with that bipartisan balanced approach, including revenues, including through tax reform, making sure that our health care and safety net is there for our kids and grandkids, as the gentleman from Virginia talked about.

This is a very important point in this Congress' deliberations. We have to come together. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to share with my colleagues yesterday's very exciting announcement of the first utility-scale, grid-connected wave energy test site in the United States, which I'm proud to say is going to occur in my district in Newport, Oregon.

The Northwest National Marine Energy Center, based at Oregon State University, will be constructing the Pacific Marine Energy Center to test energy generation potential and environmental impacts of these wave energy devices.

NNMREC, established in 2008, is a partnership between Oregon State University and the University of Washington and is one of only three U.S. Department of Energy-supported marine renewable energy centers. In addition to the Department of Energy, this work is supported by my State of Oregon, the Wave Energy Trust, and other private and public agencies.

NNMREC's selection of Newport as the site will not only benefit the community of Newport but, frankly, the entire Oregon coast and will set a course for Oregon and the Nation to be one step closer to energy independence.

I am also very proud of Oregon State University and their continued leadership in this area. I would be very remiss if I didn't give a shout out to the incredible work done by Belinda Batten, director of NNMREC, and Annette von Jouanne, professor at Oregon State University, and all the faculty and students in the Wave Energy Department at OSU. Their tireless efforts are the reason we're able to celebrate this achievement today.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have actually completed our withdrawal from Iraq. We are on our way to withdrawing from Afghanistan. There is not a strategic need to increase the base budget for the Defense Department beyond the BCA, Budget Control Act, agreement.

Our own military leaders have acknowledged that our debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our country actually faces. We need to be building on the fiscal foundation the BCA laid in order to provide for our children's futures and the military they will need to defend their freedoms. Sticking to the BCA framework is our strategic priority.

We should take a moment to remember where we were at this time last year. There was a real threat of government and economic shutdown due to the approaching debt limit. In the very 11th hour, we passed the bipartisan Budget Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis by cutting $900 billion from the deficits and agreeing to cut another $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Even still, our national debt has increased by $1.3 trillion since we came to that agreement last August. In part, this is due to the failure of the supercommittee to reform entitlements in our Tax Code.

In the coming months, we need to finish the job we began with the passage of the Budget Control Act. Reforming entitlements and instituting comprehensive tax reform as suggested by the Bowles-Simpson plan is no longer an option but a national necessity. Changes scheduled to go into effect in January would harm the economy and the middle class while proving ineffective in true deficit reduction. Backpedaling on the BCA is irresponsible.

By holding this body to the bipartisan law we passed last August and reducing our debt by reducing the underlying bill's appropriation by a mere $7.5 billion--in Washington, D.C. terms--the amendment before you today will enhance our national economic security.

We need to stick to the spending caps and move on from the FY 2013 appropriation process so we can work on getting the next framework put in place to responsibly address what has become known as the ``fiscal cliff.''

The American people and businesses in this country deserve certainty about their future. We need to do right by them, avoid a crisis of our own making, and lay the groundwork for restoring our economy and getting hardworking Americans back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.