Floor Statements

I do rise in support.

I understand you had the debate, but I would feel remiss if I didn't make a few comments for my fellow airmen that have served and serve with great distinction.

It has probably been said, but Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross 80 years ago, and today it is America's oldest military aviation award. The medal was created to symbolize sacrifice and heroism.

I applaud Mr. Calvert for introducing this legislation, which will finally give Distinguished Flying Cross recipients the national recognition they deserve. Many may know that I served in the U.S. Army for 20 years, including a couple tours in Vietnam. I had the opportunity to serve with many great aviators who were also awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

I was truly honored to not only serve with these aviators but, in some cases, to supervise them. I had the opportunity to recommend brave individuals for the Distinguished Flying Cross. Their heroism and valor oftentimes inspired me and kept me going in the face of adversity.

This bill today honors my fellow aviators I served with during my 20 years, in addition to the men and women who now are protecting us in the skies domestically and abroad. My experience in the Army has a strong influence on me and added to many positives in the rest of my life.

When I look back at that time, I remember those I served with who gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country, those who served and gave their lives for our freedom. And I feel honored I had the opportunity to serve. Because of this experience, I truly relish what a tremendous gift and what a privilege it is to be an American.

Today I am extremely pleased to honor those aviators and all aviators. I strongly urge my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 2788.

Madam Chair, I would like to engage the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the purposes of a colloquy.

I would like to clarify the intent of section 312 of

My understanding is that Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, has a highly innovative foreign language skills program. Under that program, Drake students work with native speakers in groups of five or fewer three times a week. Such students may also take a ``strategies'' course, which has several goals, including helping students approach the culture they are studying through a nonethnocentric lens.

Former students of this program have gone on to teach in China, become Fulbright Scholars, provide translation services, perform nonprofit and missionary work in El Salvador, complete advanced degrees in languages, and excel in the corporate world more generally.

Is Drake University's language program the type of program that the intelligence community believes would be a good candidate to receive a grant from the ODNI under section 312 of H.R. 2701?

Thank you, Chairman Reyes, for that comment and that visit. That is correct. I appreciate that.

I want to thank you for the clarification.

I thank the chairman for this opportunity. I appreciate it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act.

An original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that our health insurance companies need to be held to the competitive standard our free market demands.

For too long, these companies have told our constituents what they will insure and what they will be paid. Just recently, 80,000 Iowans were told that their insurance rates would jump by an average of 18 percent, with many facing increases of as much as 25 percent. These same individuals have seen their rates increase by 10\1/2\ percent each year since 2005.

I insist that light be shed on the pricing of health care costs and that consumers have access to how their premiums and copays are determined. I

would particularly like this information for my constituents whose premium increase is twice what it was in 2009.

Iowans in the Third District are struggling to make ends meet. They deserve to know how a company can spend as much as perhaps $200 million on a new headquarters and turn around and double their premium increases from 2009 to 2010 and then claim these two things have nothing to do with one another.

Our support for this legislation will make it illegal for companies to price fix, practice bid rigging, and market allocation simply to drive up costs on American consumers.

Madam Speaker, the United States has the safest, most plentiful, and most affordable food supply in the world. This abundant food supply didn't happen by accident. The United States has put policies and production practices in place which allows us to continue to feed the world at affordable prices.

However, animal agriculture and those production practices are under attack. Some in Congress would ban the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. As a lifelong farmer still managing a cow-calf operation in Iowa and former chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee, the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is an issue I have personally been involved in.

As a livestock producer, I can attest that the industry is committed to using antibiotics responsibly and has developed responsible use guidelines. Producers didn't develop these guidelines because Congress told them to do so. They developed the guidelines because it was the right thing to do for their animals and their consumers.

Those in Congress who would ban the use of antibiotics for nontreatment purposes have a noble goal--improving human health. However, scientific evidence does not exist that this ban would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. They are looking to penalize an industry without appropriate data to back up their claim.

A 2006 report from the Institute of Food Technologists said ``eliminating antibiotic drugs from food animal production may have little positive effect on resistant bacteria that threaten human health.'' In fact, eliminating animal antibiotics may be detrimental to public health.

I believe that a ban on non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal agriculture will have detrimental effects, not only on our farmers who feed the world safe and wholesome meat and meat products, but also on public health.

I first have to say on opening to Mr. Garrett, my friend across the aisle, you often say that we don't need more government. Well, maybe so, if under the previous administration and our friends, that you would have done the job that we have to try to do cleanup on now.

I would like to personally thank Chairman Peterson for his leadership in bringing oversight to the over-the-counter derivatives markets.

For too long, regulators did not have the tools necessary to police these markets. As a consequence, large financial institutions like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG got into trouble before anyone knew it. Had these provisions been in place, the government would not have had to spend billions to rescue AIG to prevent its collapse from sending shock waves throughout the financial system.

The compromise which the Agriculture and Financial Services Committees reached will bring greater transparency and oversight to the over-the-counter derivatives markets. We must provide necessary oversight of these markets without hindering legitimate consumers from operating within them.

This compromise strikes a careful balance that protects the use of derivatives by so-called ``end users'' who utilize these markets to hedge the cost of their operations. Whether dealing with grain, energy, steel, or financing, American companies use derivatives to lock in prices to effectively plan for the future.

When the Agriculture Committee first considered the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives markets, I offered an amendment to require mandatory clearing. And I'm pleased to see that this compromise, which the chairman will be offering today, maintains this concept.

Clearing exposes and mutualizes the counterparty credit risk which, up until now, has been hidden behind closed doors. While every derivative does not need to be cleared, the compromise will ensure that regulators

look at all derivatives to identify what classes should require clearance.

The notional value of the over-the-counter derivatives markets ranges from $400 to $600 trillion. To allow something this massive that impacts every American to continue to operate unregulated is simply not acceptable. This legislation will strike a good balance of consumer protection without obstructing individuals and companies from conducting their business and managing their risk.

I urge support for this amendment.

I rise in support of this bill. The people in my area are waiting and so is my State and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Today, I am pleased to vote for the most transformative piece of legislation that I have considered during my 13 years in Congress.

I am voting to grant access to health care coverage for 18,000 uninsured constituents in my district and to make it more affordable for another 440,000 insured.

I am voting to guarantee that 6,400 of my constituents with preexisting conditions could never be denied coverage and to reduce insurance costs for 14,800 small businesses.

I am voting to finally address how Iowa's hospitals and providers are reimbursed for the care they provide.

Under this legislation, the Government will not force individuals and families with employer-based coverage to give up their insurance plans. However, as a result of the insurance reforms in this bill, they will no longer be required to pay co-pays or deductibles for preventive care; no more rate increases or coverage denials for preexisting conditions, gender, or occupation; and guaranteed oral, vision, and hearing benefits for children. The public option offered in the health insurance exchange would drive down costs across the board by fostering competition and expanding insurance choices.

Iowa's hospitals and providers have shouldered the burden of unfair Medicare reimbursements for the high-quality care they provide for too long. This bill will require studies on the reimbursement formula and move toward a payment system based on quality, not quantity. Providers who participate in the public option would be reimbursed through negotiated rates that balance what private insurance companies pay for services with the current Medicare rates.

I am taking a little bit different tack here. I don't object to what we are trying to do, but as I have thought about this over the last few hours, I have a concern, and this concern has to do with I think there has been very little discussion with those that produce our food and fiber in this country, which I have been involved in most of my life, as well as many others here. I am told that there has not been too much coordination.

So I am not saying don't do this. I am wondering if we could just pause for a minute and take some time to discuss the impact on another area of security, if you will, homeland security and the production of food and fiber.

Our farmers in this country, dairy farmers by the multitudes, are going under. Pork producers are down about $22 per head over the last 24 months. Beef producers can't meet the cost of input. Corn producers in my State are not meeting the cost of input. And I think maybe it would be time well spent if we could just pause and think about the impact of these things on what we are trying to do.

Yes, we need to protect our environment. Yes, we need to protect our water. Nobody is arguing about that. We in agriculture think that very strongly.

But probably who I need to be talking to is not here listening on the floor today to be able to cause this pause to take place. Mr. Chairman, I think this is deserving of some careful consideration because one thing that we haven't done in this country compared to some places around the world, we haven't been hungry. If that should happen, we would certainly, surely have a very, very serious security situation.

I think the intent is good, but I think we need a little pause to talk for a day or two about the possibility, about the impact that this has on food and fiber production in this great country of ours.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my marks.

I rise today in support of the manager's amendment, and the underlying bill, H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009.

Thank you Chairwoman Velazquez for including an amendment I submitted to Rules.

This amendment will ensure that Small Business Administration loans may be used to purchase facilities and equipment that have been left behind by closed manufacturing plants.

Each of us has seen communities devastated by the loss of a factory-- from the closing of automotive businesses, to the buy-out of Maytag Corporation in my own district.

On Tuesday, many of us read in the Washington Post that an electronic car company will be taking over a GM building in Delaware.

I believe we must continue to incentivize this practice--but on a broader scale.

In my own district I have seen companies from within and outside Iowa purchase Maytag campus facilities, our own Iowa Telecom, Trinity Towers wind energy, and a new and locally owned small business, Madhouse Brewery.

The empty factory buildings scattered across our nation represent the loss of jobs, tough times, and hard choices for families and community leaders.

I believe these buildings can be used to better our districts and states. By helping small businesses that are rooted in the community purchase these buildings or equipment, we will help bring hope to our towns that have suffered such losses.

This amendment and legislation will empower the financial stability of America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and H.R. 3854.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time, and I appreciate that you took into account the factories and the equipment that has become available because of closings and so on, like Maytag, for example, in my district. A lot of good things have happened with the small businesses going in there, and you have really taken measures that will benefit that and will help our country and certainly help those communities that have been hit very hard.

So we compliment you for your work, and see that is happening other places around the country as well. The need is there, and this will be a big asset. Well done. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the important strides Congress is making toward our Nation's health care reform.

I am pleased the Senate will be including a public option in their version of the health reform bill. A public option is absolutely essential. America's health insurance industry needs a mechanism that will level the playing field and protect consumers. The public option that we create must be fair and pay doctors and hospitals accordingly.

Many of us are very concerned that our rural doctors and hospitals are having many troubles. That is why I support language that will direct the Institute of Medicine to study the Medicare reimbursement formula and direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fix these flawed reimbursements.

Medical professionals in my home State of Iowa were recently ranked second by the Commonwealth Foundation for providing some of the best care in the Nation. Yet when we are reimbursed by Medicare, they receive half as much per enrollee compared to many other States. Without fair pay, these providers will be pushed further into the red and out of Iowa and other States with the same problem.

The studies that we have proposed to revise Medicare reimbursement rates and create quality measures will pave the way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. On a personal basis, Dr. Borlaug was one of the most unusual people I met in my life. He was so impressive in so many ways.

On September 12, we lost one of the greatest humanitarians and scientists of our century. Dr. Borlaug has been credited to have saved more than 1 billion lives through his breakthrough work in agriculture. He was a truly remarkable man.

He was born on a small farm outside of Cresco, Iowa. After earning his Ph.D from the University of Minnesota, he joined a research project in Mexico in 1944. Through this work he developed what was called ``miracle wheat'' that tripled grain output and helped move Mexico to agriculture self-sufficiency. He then shared this new breed of wheat with Pakistan and India and helped those nations to avert the mass famine and starvations that had appeared imminent.

In a recent article in the Washington Post on Dr. Borlaug, it was stated that ``in India, Mexico and other nations susceptible to hunger and famine, he was known as one of the great Americans of modern times.''

Not only was he a great scientist, he was a world renowned humanitarian. Dr. Borlaug was one of only five people in history to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal. He is in the company of Nelson

Mandela, Elie Wiesel, Mother Theresa, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was also named by Time magazine in 1999 as one of the 100 most influential minds of the 20th century.

After Dr. Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, the only time in its history the award was given for achievements in agricultural science, he set out to create an award dedicated for significant breakthroughs in food and agriculture. In 1986, Dr. Borlaug founded the World Food Prize to recognize lifesaving achievements that increased the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world. Then in 1990, the prize was moved to my district in Des Moines, Iowa. Now in its 23rd year, the award has recognized individuals from around the world and has continued to promote global world security.

I mourn the loss of a great Iowan and American, yet I am also reminded of many wonderful memories. He was truly a great person who has had, and will continue to have, a profound impact on all of us. His contributions in the field of agriculture and his commitment to the human condition have fed so many around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this true American hero and father of the Green Revolution with a ``yes'' vote on H. Res. 739.

I would first like to thank the chairman and ranking member for moving this bill along. I might add, Mr. Issa, that we did have an individual request for this, and we thought about it long and hard. Then we thought about the multitude, the many that have served, and felt like it was appropriate to do this.

So I do rise today and honor those who have nobly served the Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ask colleagues to support H.R. 3386, which, as has been said, will designate a post office in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office.''

Having spent some 20 years myself in the Army, and a couple tours in Vietnam, I understand the sacrifices, and so do you, Mr. Issa, and so do many others, made by our servicemembers.

Our Armed Forces have many assets--whether it's our aircraft carriers, fighter planes, missiles. However, oftentimes one of the greatest military assets is overlooked, and that's our military personnel.

Our servicemen and -women stand ready to defend the freedoms we hold dear. Our all-volunteer force is made up of brave individuals who know all too well the sacrifices that we have asked them to make. Yet time and again, with this knowledge, they continue to put our freedoms above what they give up. These brave young men and women who have fought in these wars, many having lost their lives, deserve recognition for their service and their sacrifice.

Renaming the post office in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, will create a memorial for all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and each day Iowans will be reminded of our neighbors who courageously fought on our behalf. By renaming this post office, we honor those who have served, but also those who have given the ultimate sacrifice--their lives. To date, more than 50 Iowans have made that sacrifice.

Those who have or are serving in our Armed Forces are committed to serving our Nation with courage and honor. We must make that same commitment to them.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3386. We must never forget.

Madam Speaker, I regret missing afternoon and evening votes from the House on June 20th. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 593, 594, 595.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to share this moment.

I rise in support of this legislation and the manager's amendment, the manager's amendment because the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act holds great promise for our Nation's most innovative minds and creative entrepreneurs.

In particular, I would like to thank the chairwoman for including in the manager's amendment language that will give priority for SBIR and STTR grants to applicants in areas that have suffered the loss of a major source of employment.

Having worked with Congresswoman Sutton to pass these provisions in the 2008 reauthorization when it was considered by the full House, I know that both of us are very pleased this language has made its way to the floor again this year.

Almost 2 years ago, Maytag Corporation in Newton, Iowa, a town of 15,500 people, manufactured its last machine after being purchased by its larger competitor, losing more than 2,000 good-paying family jobs. Since then, this town has worked hard to rebuild itself, create jobs for the people of Newton and its surrounding communities.

Unfortunately, though, similar stories still devastate towns in my district, my State, and our country and yours as well. Local shops are closing doors, factories are being put out, and too many hardworking Americans have lost their jobs.

This bill will bring new jobs to towns whose hard leadership has been forced to close doors on its consumers and its employees. It will provide employment for those individuals who worked on the assembly line 50 miles down the road welding the frames.

The ongoing effects of bankrupt companies and lost liquidity are placing damaging effects on workers in all districts, on people who found pride in their jobs and now just want to provide for their families.

By enhancing and reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR program, we will put moms and dads back to work so they can put food on the table and pay the bills. College students graduating with debt will have increased opportunities in their communities, and we will tap into some of the most industrious and ambitious minds in America.

By passing this legislation today, we will empower other districts and provide our constituents with the resources they need to rebuild their communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this underlying bill and the manager's amendment.

I will say, with some reservation, that I support H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. I am pleased with the deal between Chairman Peterson and Chairman Waxman to protect America's farmers and ensure many of agriculture's concerns were resolved. They both should be commended for their hard work. This bill makes tremendous progress on jobs, energy, national security and the environment. However, one troubling issue remains. A formula

partially based on retail sales means consumers in coal-reliant States, like Iowa and the Midwest, who need the most help will see greater rate increases than consumers in other parts of the country.

When Iowa's unemployment rate is at its highest in over 20 years, Iowans are struggling to repay student loans, pay rent, and put food on the table, why are we asking those of us in the heartland to shoulder more of the burden than others? This is neither fair nor equitable because it creates winners and losers.

I am not giving up. This bill is worth supporting; but it is my hope that when the House addresses this legislation again, the allocation formula will be more equitable for Iowans and Midwesterners alike.

I rise today with some reservation to support for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. I am proud that this legislation preempts potentially devastating regulation by the EPA, and responds to our constituents' demands to prevent that from happening. I am also proud that it would harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious challenge of climate change.

However, when we started this process I had a list of many things which concerned me and needed to be addressed, such as fixing the indirect land use issues under the Renewable Fuel Standard-2, a robust agricultural offset provision which recognized early adaptors and was exclusively operated by USDA to implement and oversee the agriculture and forestry offset program, and the 50-50 allocation formula. I was pleased with the deal that was struck between Chairman Peterson and Chairman Waxman to ensure many of those issues were resolved. They both should be commended for their hard work.

However, one key concern has yet to be addressed. As currently written, this legislation provides local distribution companies with allowances through a formula equally weighted between historic emissions and retail sales. Since the intent of the legislation is to reduce emissions, and the intent of providing allowances is to protect consumers from price increases, basing allowances on retail sales reduces the legislation's effectiveness. While certain providers will receive enough allowances to offset 100 percent of the cost of compliance, many companies throughout the Midwest will be forced to purchase numerous allowances, passing those prices on to their consumers. Consumers in coal-reliant states such as Iowa--who need the most help--will see far greater rate increases than consumers in other parts of the country.

This doesn't have to happen. Congressman Loebsack and I offered an amendment to change the formula so that allowances will be distributed based solely on historic emissions. I am gravely disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order.

Under the amendment I had hoped to offer on the floor today, a utility would receive emission allowances based only on its emitting assets, like coal and natural gas-fired plants. It would not receive emission allowances for non-emitting nuclear and hydro assets, because they don't need them.

As such, there will not be enough allowances for higher-emitting electric utilities in the Midwest that need them to comply with H.R. 2454. This makes the bill very different from the Clean Air Act, which distributed sulfur dioxide emission allowances only to utilities that actually had sulfur dioxide emissions to reduce.

Under the current formula, utilities in my area will only receive 65 percent of compliance costs at most, and less than 50 percent in some areas--the shortfall will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. When you compare this to other regions of the country they will receive 100 percent of the needed allocations. Because of this inequity consumers in the Midwest will have to make up the difference; their rates will go up far more than consumers in other areas. This is neither fair nor equitable, because it creates winners and losers.

The retail sales component of the formula benefits companies like FPL and Exelon with heavy nuclear or hydro assets, because they will receive emission allowances for assets that don't emit.

They don't need these windfall allowances to comply with the bill's cap, so they can sell them in a carbon trading market for a profit.

If you don't believe that, just read a June 10th Bernstein Research analysis, in which Exelon's CEO, John Rowe, predicted that H.R. 2454 ``will add $700 to $750 million to Exelon's annual revenues.''

In these tough economic times when Iowa's unemployment rate is at its highest in over 20 years, when Iowan's are struggling to repay student loans, pay rent, and put food on the table, why are we asking those of us in the heartland to shoulder more of the burden than others?

I would also like to take a moment to talk about another amendment I tried to offer. My amendment would have provided a government backed loan guarantee for the construction of a renewable fuel pipeline.

Transporting fuels by rail and truck has higher energy input requirements and much higher greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 emissions are reduced by 30 percent when comparing liquid fuel transported by pipelines vs. railcars and 87 percent when comparing pipelines to trucks.

Even though my amendment to bring equity to the formula was not ruled in order I am not giving up. I plan to work with my colleagues in the other body to bring this serious issue to light and to work towards a solution that works for Iowa families. It is my hope that when the House addresses this legislation again the allocation formula will be more equitable for Iowan's and Midwesterners alike.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Wolf for their hard work on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide an increase of $2.5 million for the National Criminal History Improvement Program. I have brought this issue to the floor for several years now, and it consistently receives bipartisan support.

I thank my colleagues for their continued support and for their commitment to law enforcement officers and public safety. I believe that this increase is incredibly important for law enforcement. We must ensure that the intelligence our officers are working off of is up to date and accurate.

The National Criminal History Improvement Program ensures that States improve their infrastructure to connect to the national records system. It helps protect our most vulnerable populations by improving law enforcement's ability to identify persons ineligible to hold positions involving children, the elderly or the disabled. The program also helps law enforcement officers protect our communities from individuals with histories of stalking and of committing acts of domestic violence. I think my colleagues will agree this is an important investment.

I would like to yield to the distinguished chairman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

We thank you.

With that, I would urge the adoption of this amendment.

I will reserve my time for any comments that might be made from the other side.

With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back my time.