Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlemen from California and Arizona.

This has been a hard-fought battle in my State. In a prior lifetime, I was a legislator in charge of the appropriations process for my home State of Oregon; and for the 10, 12 years I was in the State legislature, this area, this internecine warfare in the Klamath Basin over the use of the water resources was a really hot topic.

As a result, our State and the Federal Government were spending millions of dollars in lawsuits. This agreement, this agreement to have a study to bury that hatchet and come to an agreement is absolutely critical. We have tribes, ranchers, farmers, local officials who have all come together to say let's solve this problem at the regional level.

We in Washington, D.C., should not be getting involved. This is a long-fought battle that finally has come to some accord. We should let it happen and stay out of Oregon and California's business.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Frankly, I am not sure exactly where my friend from Washington has gotten his facts. Let's be clear up front, if this amendment was enacted, NOAA would face termination liabilities well in excess of the $5 million or $10 million that my good colleague refers to that would be in excess of $50 million, and their ability to conduct the mission critical activities in the Pacific would be in serious jeopardy.

NOAA would have neither the authority nor resources to contract for alternate arrangements, putting in jeopardy the support of this fleet of ships which gather critical data to produce navigational charts of U.S. waters, survey fishery stocks, and maintain instruments which support tsunami warnings, weather forecasts, and climate research. Let me say again for the record very clearly here, after NOAA's current lease is up in June, if this amendment were to pass, NOAA would have no authority--zero, legal or otherwise--to mobilize its Pacific fleet. It would be dead in the water.

There has been a lot of talk about process; but, frankly, this process has been comprehensive, transparent, and legitimate. My friends in Washington State have made sure that's the case. After a rigorous competitive lease acquisition process that followed GAO guidelines, NOAA was awarded a 20-year lease to Newport for the relocation of its Pacific fleet in August of 2009, and it subsequently complied with the IG report that was referred to and met the guidelines.

The facts are clear. NOAA made this decision based on merits, not politics. Let's not have politics undo a good decision. Newport was a superior choice for the taxpayers and the agency's mission in the Pacific. It was the number one choice in cost, and it was the number one choice in technical merit. In fact, the annual lease of the Newport facilities will cost the Federal Government 50 percent less than the three competing sites located in Washington State.

In fact, in 2006, the pier at NOAA's Lake Union, Seattle, facility was destroyed by fire and was never even reconstructed by the host city. On the other hand, the State of Oregon and the local community have spent millions of dollars of their own dollars with no Federal support to construct new facilities in Newport. Newport is actually ahead of schedule and will be ready to hand over the keys to NOAA on May 1 when NOAA's 20-year lease is set to commence. NOAA is contractually obligated, Mr. Chair, to commence the 20-year lease in May of this year.

The new facility in Newport brings costs, offsets, and advantages that my good friend and colleague from Washington conveniently omits. The closer proximity and transit time from the port to the ocean is dramatic. Instead of 8 hours from Lake Union, they get to the ocean in 20 minutes. The new facility is right next to the Hatfield Center, Oregon State University, for great research compatibility. And importantly, the relocation of NOAA's Pacific fleet represents a huge boost to a small rural Oregon coastal community with a great fishing legend and tradition that will bring much-needed jobs and translate into significant economic benefits. This is a David versus Goliath opportunity.

Over the last 4 days, we've engaged in rigorous debate about the fiscal health of our country. For my colleagues that are serious about saving taxpayer dollars and reducing our deficit, you should join me in opposing the McDermott amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the good Representative from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Offered By: Mr. Schrader

Amendment No. 552: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the 2nd Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry Regiment, 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Oregon National Guard for their heroic action during the Battle of Fallujah in November of 2004. The unit will soon be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for their gallantry in combat. This will be the first award of the Presidential Unit Citation to a unit of the Oregon National Guard in over six decades. The last time a unit of the Oregon National Guard received this distinction was for their valor during the Second World War.

The Presidential Unit Citation reads: ``On 03 November 2004, the unit was placed under the operational control of the 1st Regimental Combat Team of the 1st Marine Division, to execute offensive operations in the central Iraqi city of Fallujah. The unit was selected for the initial attack on the city and tasked with penetrating the enemy's defenses and isolating the Jolan District in northwestern Fallujah. The Jolan District was believed to be the strongest of the enemy's defenses. The unit's rapid penetration deep into the city overwhelmed enemy positions, leading the way for further exploitation by the Marines. Throughout the remainder of the battle, the unit continued to isolate western Fallujah while attacking and destroying numerous enemy strong points. The unit's heroic Soldiers, and their expert use of combined arms firepower, led to the destruction of the insurgents in Fallujah.''

The soldiers of 2nd Platoon, Company B, 2-162nd Infantry have demonstrated the kind of courage, determination, and skill exemplifying the highest standards of the United States Armed Forces and reflect great credit upon themselves, the Oregon National Guard, and the United States Army.

The Oregon National Guard has deployed 8,917 citizen soldiers worldwide in combat and counter-terrorist operations since September 11, 2001. As our citizen soldiers have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to the United States of America, we in Congress must reaffirm our support for the men and women who bravely serve our Country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Gladstone, Oregon, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. From its perch at the confluence of the mighty Willamette and Clackamas rivers, Gladstone has for 100 years kept a watchful eye on Oregon as our fine state has grown from humble pioneer beginnings.

The land that Gladstone residents call home today was originally a meeting place for local Native American tribes--namely the Clackamas and Multnomah Tribes. The famous Pow Wow Tree, where tribes from all over the region would gather to trade and conduct important community proceedings, still stands today near Clackamas Boulevard. This ancient tree serves as a significant reminder that Gladstone's history as an important place to come together long predates the founding of our Union.

Pioneers arrived in Oregon via the Oregon Trail and began settling the Willamette Valley in the 1840s. The Cason and Rinearson families were granted the original donation land claims in what is now known as Gladstone. In fact, the boundary between the Cason and Rinearson settlements, now known as Portland Avenue, serves as a prominent municipal boundary today. Although the area would continue to serve as an important regional gathering place, hosting the first Oregon State Fair in 1861, the official founding of the City of Gladstone would not happen for more than 60 years.

After purchasing portions of the original Cason family land claim in the 1880s, Clackamas County Judge Harvey Edward Cross set about platting a town and offering parcels of his land for sale. On January 10, 1911, the city was officially founded. Judge Cross chose as the new city's namesake, the famed four-time British Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Ewart Gladstone.

In 1894, local author and Chautaqua movement proponent, Eva Emory Dye, enlisted Judge Cross's help to bring Chautaqua to the Gladstone area. Judge Cross concurred that Chautaqua would bring great cultural enrichment; therefore, he agreed to lease his Gladstone Park to the Willamette Valley Chautaqua Association for a term of 50 years. After the first festival was rained out in 1894, an assembly hall with seating for 3,000 was constructed on site. The Gladstone Chautauqua ran for many years and hosted appearances by such famous Americans as John Philip Sousa, Theodore Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan. Although crowds could swell to as large as 50,000 in certain years, dwindling attendance eventually forced the Willamette Valley Chautaqua Association into bankruptcy and closure in 1927.

Today, Gladstone continues its tradition as an important community gathering place. The spirit of the Pow Wow Tree and early Chautaqua events can be felt every summer at the City's Chautaqua Festival and parade. Despite urban encroachment, Gladstone has

retained a small town character and strong sense of community that make it an ideal place for families young and old to live, work and play. With a strong sense of its history and an eye toward the future, I am confident that Gladstone will continue to thrive for another 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be the representative of the fine community of Gladstone, Oregon. I congratulate the citizens of Gladstone on their centennial, and I look forward to sharing in the celebration.

Section 3: ``This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within 7 years from the date of submission hereof to the States by the Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, as our economy continues to recover we need to do everything we can to help struggling middle class families. That's why I supported the extension of the 2001/2003 tax cuts which provides meaningful tax relief for 97 percent of families and small businesses. I'm also pleased that this legislation complies with PAYGO and will add some much needed certainty to Oregon families and small businesses as they budget for next year.

However, I'm uncomfortable making these tax cuts permanent and would prefer a temporary extension to protect middle class families. We need to have a real debate on overhauling our tax system and its long term effects on our economy and National Debt next session. Without controlling our deficit issues we will be unable to fund our schools, health care for seniors, public safety and national defense so we must keep all our options on the table. I'm also disappointed we did not include the bipartisan estate tax fix, which passed the House last December, in this tax relief package.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the general goals and ideals of the DREAM Act.

I agree with the principles of giving aspiring students the ability to follow their dreams, complete college, and contribute to our society and economy. Ultimately, America will benefit from their ambition and hard work as they earn their degree and citizenship.

However, I believe passing the DREAM Act outside of comprehensive immigration reform is ill advised.

Our immigration system is terribly broken. As a small business owner and farmer, before coming to serve the people of Oregon's Fifth Congressional District as their Representative, I know the current system does not work for the economic engines of Oregon.

It is not fair to small businesses to ask them to act as the focal point for enforcement; that is the job of the Federal Government through Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The current system is especially unfair to our farmers, who do not have enough access to legal migrant workers to work the land. I support revamping employment verification and the AgJobs bill which, like the DREAM Act are vital to any successful comprehensive immigration reform package but do not work on their own.

In 2008, the Coalition for a Working Oregon released a report prepared by a professor at Oregon State University. The findings suggest the loss of undocumented workers in Oregon would lead to the loss of an additional 76,000 jobs for legal workers in Oregon. This drop in economic activity would cost the State of Oregon as much as $656 million in revenue and lower small business income by eight-point- five percent. Oregon's economy and state government cannot sustain such losses. We must look at the broader economic impact of policy decisions and do what is best for the United States and the American worker.

Our immigration system needs to be reformed, no question, but reformed in the right way. If we are to approach immigration reform in a piecemeal manner we will actually be making it harder to accomplish comprehensive immigration reform. Adding complexity to a broken system already in need of reconstruction will not make our job any easier.

The problems with our immigration system are so large and significant that they need to be addressed immediately and together. We need to figure out how to address all undocumented people in our country, we cannot cherry pick certain groups and advance them ahead of those who have followed the rules to obtain citizenship. There is a human face to and national interests to address in the problems each group faces.

Border control, employer verification, exit controls, keeping family units intact, protecting our economy and many others are tough issues to resolve effectively and fairly. They deserve our time and attention. I am not interested in just kicking the can down the road by not taking tough votes on immigration reform. My ``no'' vote is a request for urgency. The whole immigration system needs to be fixed, not just part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reaffirm support for the general goals and ideals of the DREAM Act. Unfortunately and ultimately, America will have trouble getting there. But the ambition and hard work of immigrant students earning their degrees and citizenship will benefit our country. However, I voted against the passage of the DREAM Act last night. I believe passing this bill outside of comprehensive immigration reform is ill-advised.

Our immigration system is terribly broken. As a small business owner and farmer, I know the current system does not work for small businesses asked to play the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also doesn't work

for farmers harvesting their crops, for children raised as Americans, or the many people playing by the rules and seeking United States citizenship because they believe in the promise of America.

Border control, employer verification, exit controls, keeping family units intact, protecting our economy, and many others are tough issues that need to be resolved effectively and fairly. They deserve our time and attention now. I am not interested in just kicking the can down the road by not taking the tough votes on immigration reform. The whole system needs to be fixed, not just part of it.

I appreciate Mr. Clay for yielding time to me.

I would like to take a moment here and thank Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa and their staffs on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for helping to bring this resolution to the floor.

As a veterinarian myself and a Member of Congress, I introduced this resolution to bring attention to the veterinary profession at a time when it faces some challenges and to honor the contributions veterinary medicine has made in animal health, public health, animal welfare, and our food safety.

Next year will mark the 250th anniversary of the opening of the first Veterinary school in Lyon, France, and the beginning of our veterinary profession. The school in Lyon was authorized by King Louis XV, August 4, 1761, based on the principles and methods of curing livestock. The reputation of this school soon spread and students from all over Europe attended, and these students became the leading lights of veterinary science when they returned to their own countries.

A second school was established in Alfort, France, and soon secondary schools built on the Lyon model appeared in Germany, England, and other European countries. Since its humble beginnings in Lyon in the year 1761, the practice of veterinary medicine has spread across the globe for the betterment of animals, humans, and our environment.

As a result, veterinarians have become the most qualified health professionals to help us deal with zoonotic diseases, bioterrorism, comparative medicine, and food safety issues on our front lines and leaders in research and scientific innovation as well as the scientific benefits of the animal-human companion bond.

Veterinarians have always been an integral part of their communities and expected to be community leaders. I may have carried it to an extreme.

In my lifetime, I have been actually blessed to see some exponential growth in the veterinary medical field. We went from the James Herriot era of liniments and potions to the ongoing use of antibiotics and steroids; advances in diagnostics and treatments, including IV therapy, dentistry; second and third generation of antibiotics and steroids, new anti-inflammatories; treatments for diabetes, Cushing's, Addison's-- diseases we see both in humans and in animals--and advances in nutrition that our human colleagues could take advantage of.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in commemorating this important milestone by supporting H. Res. 1531 and proclaiming 2011 as World Veterinary Year in honor of the 250th anniversary of the veterinary profession.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mt. Angel Telephone in Mt. Angel, Oregon, on the occasion of their 100th anniversary of being in business.

The City of Mt. Angel was founded in 1893 by German pioneers, due to its striking resemblance to rural Bavaria. In 1910, a local telephone company was organized and 45 customers were signed up in no time at all.

On the occasion of Mt. Angel Telephone's 100th anniversary celebration on August 20, 2010, the company sponsored its annual Customer Appreciation Day with community booths that attracted thousands of visitors to the community.

This event included a street fair, free community lunch, the Mt. Angel Police Department Bike Rodeo, free sight and hearing tests by Mt. Angel Lions Club, the ``Phone Walk'', an antique vehicles display, and activities for children.

Officers of the Mt. Angel Police Department offered free bike helmets to all children that participated in the rodeo. The Mt. Angel Lions Club and the Oregon Lions Mobile Health Screening Unit provided free health screenings to the public for visual acuity, hearing, blood pressure, diabetes, and glaucoma.

Finally, the Mt. Angel Apple Tree School Supply program took in donations for local students in need of school supplies. The drive helps parents with children in the local school district who find it difficult or impossible to afford school supplies.

Mt. Angel Telephone is more than just a company. It's a central part of the community and economy of the rural City of Mt. Angel, and it's always providing more than just telephone and internet services. It's providing a model of how a local business survives to become a centurion and how to give back.

Madam Speaker, while 100 years have now passed since Mt. Angel Telephone was founded, I am honored to represent this company and the City of Mt. Angel. I congratulate Mt. Angel on their centennial celebration and hope the company enjoys another 100 years of growth and prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Christoph Thomas, one of my constituents and an Oregon State University atmospheric scientist who has received a National Science Foundation ``Career Award'' which is designed to support emerging influential scholars and educators who will become 21st century leaders.

During the next five years, Dr. Thomas will be receiving funding from the NSF to support his research on the relationship between plant canopies--such as forests and crops--and the lower atmosphere. The air exchange between these environments plays an important role in the transport of heat, moisture, momentum and trace gases, but they are poorly understood. Dr. Thomas will work with graduate students at Oregon State University, an Oregon K-12 high school teacher, and several colleagues on the studies. The project will include a teaching component, site visits by science classes, and a new graduate-level field course for students in atmospheric sciences, forestry, engineering and agricultural sciences.

Madam Speaker, this research will create better models of air transport that will lead to better large-scale weather and climate models, reducing uncertainty in projections of carbon and energy budgets while improving the ability to predict water availability in forests. I am proud to represent Dr. Christoph Thomas and Oregon State University and wish Dr. Thomas success as he puts National Science Foundation dollars to work in the coming years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon on the occasion of their 100th anniversary. From its humble beginnings as an iron industry town to its role today as a cornerstone of the State's economic engine, Lake Oswego has proven itself to be an adaptable and resilient community with a rich history.

The town of Oswego was founded in 1847, shortly after iron ore was discovered in the Tualatin Valley. The iron industry proved to be the driving economic force of the small town and many early settlers hoped to build upon the foundations of the industry and turn the area into an industrial center, the ``Pittsburg of the West.'' While the city was never able to meet these grand expectations, the Oregon Iron & Steel Company helped create a prosperous society and a growing community on the banks of Oswego Lake.

But the iron industry started to decline in Oswego at the beginning of the 20th century. With this downturn, Oregon Iron & Steel turned their focus to residential land development, selling large tracts of land to developers.

In 1910, the Oswego community was officially incorporated as the City of Oswego. The first land developers aspired to create a city where both work and leisure were integral components of the city's success. The City of Oswego was promoted as a place to ``live where you play.''

By the 1920s and 1930s, high-speed and clean electrified trains stimulated residential development in the city. The next three decades brought increased growth in the community and in 1960, the City of Oswego annexed

part of nearby Lake Grove and the city changed its name to Lake Oswego.

Today, Lake Oswego continues to be an outstanding community to live, work and play. The city has a nationally ranked library, an award winning senior center and a plethora of arts, culture and recreation opportunities available to residents. The city, in partnership with local businesses, has made a priority of economic development and transportation planning that will ensure a bright and sustainable future for the community for years to come. And the Lake Oswego School District is responsible for a public education system that is one of the best in the country, benefitting from widespread community support.

Madam Speaker, 100 years have now passed since the city was officially recognized and I am honored to be the representative for this beloved community. I congratulate Lake Oswego on their centennial celebration and hope the city enjoys another 100 years of growth and prosperity.

As a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, I would like to bring attention to my district's growing concern about our national debt. Oregon's Fifth Congressional District has been severely impacted by the recent economic downturn. Like Oregon families throughout my State, Congress must start learning to live within its means. I put a high priority on financial responsibility, which is why I've introduced H.R. 5363, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Act of 2010. The Act encourages the Federal Government to make strategic investments to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our entitlement programs. For every dollar we put into the program, we get $1.50 to $8 back.

Today, we will be voting on the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010. By passing this bill, we will expand the process of identifying programs and activities susceptible to improper payments. Identifying these programs will eliminate fraud. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically authorizes funding in the establishment of the Small Business Borrower Assistance Program to provide temporary assistance for a lot of the struggling small businesses out in America.

The Small Business Borrower Assistance Program will provide these small businesses which take out 7(a) loans under $300,000 with a reserve fund they can use at their discretion to help pay principal and interest payments if they should hit rough spots in their business cycles. Eligible small business borrowers will automatically be enrolled in the program unless they request otherwise, so it is very easy and unbureaucratic.

Once a borrower has been enrolled, the Small Business Administration will place an amount equal to 6 percent of the loan principal in reserve for the borrower. This means that a borrower who obtains a $300,000 loan will have $18,000 placed in reserve to help the borrower pay principal or interest payments. These funds can be applied to both of those at the borrower's discretion.

To be eligible for the program, a borrower must obtain the qualifying loan within 1 year after the SBA issues final regulations. This is a temporary bill to help us through the recession. The SBA must issue those final regulations within 180 days after the enactment of the program. That is to make sure that the program itself is available in the crunch times.

To prevent funds from being used for purposes other than for paying down the balances of small business loans, disbursements will be made directly to the lenders or to the loan servicers. Additionally, the Small Business Administration will have the authority to remove borrowers from the program who commit fraud or material misrepresentation.

Mr. Chairman, this is just another great tool in the toolbox for our small businesses in order to help them get back on their feet and to be the engines of economic growth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Missouri. I do take issue with them, obviously.

Mr. Chairman, to prevent fraud and abuse--and unfortunately, that does happen in tough economic times--these payments are made to the lenders to make sure they go back to where they are supposed to be, as the taxpayers have authorized under this amendment and this bill. The 7(a) program is the most popular program out there. It is something banks are familiar with, and it is the small, struggling businesses that are likely to take loans out for under $300,000 that are most in need.

So this program is targeted, temporary, and timely. Small business lending in my State is half of what it was 2 years ago. We need every tool in the toolbox to encourage the lenders who have shown extreme reticence to lend to small businesses that this country is willing to back them up and to help these small businesses pay their loans if they need to during tough stretches and tough times.

I think if you're in favor of small business and of lending and if you want to make sure that they have access and that the program that we are establishing with $30 billion really goes to small business, you will want to vote ``yes,'' in favor of this amendment.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.