Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 4015 despite being a cosponsor of the original bill. It should not have been that way. H.R. 4015 as originally drafted repealed the misguided SGR formula and laid out a reasonable path toward reimbursing doctors based on the quality of care that they provide. The bill had 118 bipartisan cosponsors. I heard from medical professionals all over Oregon who were hopeful that Congress would actually be able to pass H.R. 4015 and finally do away with short term SGR fixes.

Unfortunately Republican House leadership squandered this opportunity. Instead of finding a bipartisan way to pay for H.R. 4015, House Republican leadership inserted an ideological pay-for that would leave 13 million people uninsured according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because of this partisan gimmick, the Senate will never take up H.R. 4015. That leaves our nation's medical professionals exactly where they were before the vote--facing an approximately 27% cut in Medicare and TRICARE reimbursements if Congress doesn't fix the SGR before March 31st.

In 1997 I voted against creating the faulty SGR formula. I opposed the 1997 law because it balanced the budget on the backs of seniors and health care providers by substantially cutting Medicare. By delaying these cuts instead of permanently fixing the SGR formula, the potential cuts have grown every year.

Rather than cutting medical coverage for 13 million Americans, Congress should pay for H.R. 4015 by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Every single other developed country in the world permits their government to negotiate drug prices for all of their citizens. In the U.S. private insurance companies negotiate prices, and the Veterans Administration negotiates prices, but the federal government is prevented from negotiating drug prices for Medicare. This means that drug companies are free to charge Medicare recipients higher prices than anyone else in the world. Allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare would fully pay for the SGR fix. The House could have ensured proper reimbursements for doctors and reduced drug prices for seniors in one bill today. Instead we voted on a bill that is going nowhere.

Well, here we are again. We had a real problem. The Forest Service did overreach and trigger this issue.

Later on, we will have an amendment offered by Mr. Polis from Colorado--whose ski areas originally brought this issue to him and who now opposes this bill--to narrow the scope of this bill down to assure that the Forest Service doesn't re-propose the rule which they have withdrawn, which would have caused the problem.

The rule was offered. There was litigation. A new rule was begun. The Forest Service withdrew the rule. There is no rule pending. But we are going to pass legislation that affects all water rights in the Western United States because of a problem that doesn't currently exist.

This is fairly extraordinary. Because we held a hearing on this when the government was shut down, not very many people knew about or got to participate in the hearing. I was there. I read the bill. That is a bad habit I have. I pointed out that the bill was so broadly written that it would impact any and all Federal actions that have to do with water in the United States of America. That goes way beyond ski areas and water rights. It goes way beyond farmers or individual property rights. It has untold consequences.

As a consequence, Republicans at the time denied it. But now this bill has six savings clauses. What does that mean?

Well, the bill was so broadly and poorly drafted to begin with, they now are carving out six exemptions to say, Oh, we didn't mean to say we would take away tribes' water rights; we didn't mean to say that we couldn't have any control of Bureau of Reclamation projects and deal with flood control. Oh, we didn't mean this or that. So there are six savings clauses in this bill because it is so poorly and broadly drafted and has so many unfathomable and unintended effects. Then there is the sixth savings clause which says this bill does nothing.

Now how could that be? Well, because we are here about headlines. We are here about a headline that will be meaningless by some gullible reporter somewhere who actually believes what they are saying on that side of the aisle.

Here is the final savings clause of this unbelievably poorly drafted bill with unbelievable, unintended consequences:

Nothing in this act limits or expands any existing

authority of the Secretaries . . .

That is, Interior and Agriculture.

. . . to condition any permit, approval, license, lease,

allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or

occupancy agreement on Federal lands subject to the

respective jurisdictions.

So in the body of the bill they create a whole bunch of problems by threatening concessionaires in parks, issues relating to the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, and a whole host of projects that relate to use of the water in the West. It is a very sensitive issue, the use of the water in the West. Then they carve out five particular exceptions, which are really hot button issues. Then they have this uber exception which says this bill doesn't do anything.

So what does the bill do? Well, that is the whatever thousand-dollar question here today. It may do something unbelievably destructive to private property rights.

On that side of the aisle we hear about this all the time. A couple of weeks ago, they passed another show bill pretending to deal with the drought in California by preempting 100 years of water law in the State of California. The Federal Government preempting it.

Now they are going to fight for water rights in the West--or, at least that is the headline they hope they get out of this. But that is not what they are doing because for the first time this bill has a Federal definition in statute of water right, which would seem to preempt or contradict the States. But it has sort of got a savings clause. So it says we are creating a new Federal water right, but it really doesn't mean anything because we are not affecting the States. And oh, by the way, we have got a clause at the end saying we are not doing anything at all anyway.

So why are we here? We are here because there was a narrow issue which we could have, in a bipartisan way, agreed to deal with. It could have been what is called a suspension bill. We probably wouldn't have even had a vote on it on the floor of the House--one of those routine bills we pass generally on Mondays or Tuesdays, travel days, requiring a two-thirds vote because they are noncontroversial.

It could have been done that way. But no, that wouldn't have got a headline. It would have solved a problem--a problem that used to exist and doesn't existing anymore and might exist in the future. It would have solved that problem if it ever existed again, if the Forest Service proposed the rule again, which they aren't going to. But let's just say some future administration chose to do that. We could have preempted them that way.

But no, we couldn't just do that because how could you come here and say you are fighting for cattlemen and you are fighting for agriculture and you are fighting for the little guy and private property rights and all those wonderful buzz words around here, when you are not really doing that, but get an undeserved headline out of it if you find a gullible reporter.

That is why we are here today. It is kind of a waste of time, to tell the truth. If you want to fix the bill and potentially fix a future problem if they do go after the ski area water rights again, vote for the Polis amendment. Go back to the narrow scope of the bill. That is where we started.

If that is adopted, that would be great, and we could vote for it. If that is not adopted, I would recommend that Members think long and hard about it because you may be causing unintended effects with this bill by defining a Federal water right that potentially preempts and upends hundreds of years of precedent in the Western United States and causes untold damage. It will certainly make a lot of lawyers happy, but it is not probably going to make your farmers and ranchers happy, who you think you are pleasing here today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I am a bit confused. If you are listening to the debate, you have got to be confused about what this bill is really about. Now, it is apparently about rapid siting of nuclear plants or about constructing of pipelines through your backyard without you being allowed to comment or any environmental review, and somehow this is going to lead to job creation in America.

At the beginning of the debate, they were talking about transportation and infrastructure. I happen to be on that committee also. First off, we already did some streamlining in the last highway reauthorization. There is pending streamlining in the Water Resources Development Act. But let's drill down a little. What is the real problem?

The real problem is that this side of the aisle, the Republicans, don't want to make the investments necessary to put people back to work. The highway trust fund is going broke on October 1. Not a word from that side, except the brave chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who proposed to fund it with some tax reform. But nothing else from that side. No proposal on how we are going to continue to fund transportation and infrastructure in this country.

Water Resources Development Act, we have got a bill pending with some streamlining, but guess what? There are 60 billion--``b,'' billion-- dollars of backlogged authorized water resources development projects that have gone through the full NEPA process and been approved, but the annual construction budget, thanks to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is $1.2 billion a year. Let's see. I guess that figures out to a 50-year backlog, so it really isn't going to matter how much you eliminate NEPA review here, which is, essentially, what this bill is about, which cuts out the public and other small things like that. A 50-year backlog.

But this will solve that problem. We will be building those--well, no, we won't, really, because we don't have the money. Well, how about roads, bridges, highways, transit? There is an $80 billion backlog in transit. NEPA? No, not NEPA. No money.

Federal highways. We have 140,000 bridges on the Federal system that need replacement or substantial rehabilitation or repair. No money. It isn't a NEPA review that is stopping that. It is a lack of funding. We are not making the necessary investments.

So you are not addressing jobs here. Don't pretend you are addressing jobs, don't pretend you are addressing utility rates, and don't even pretend that this bill is going anywhere.

You know, the Republican majority repeals NEPA every other day in the Natural Resources Committee. It hasn't happened yet; and now, this is a new way to come at it, through the Judiciary Committee.

I guess they get tired. I mean, we have had a lot of bills on the floor to repeal NEPA that have been passed and have gone to the Senate, and nothing has happened. So let's try to fool them. We will cloak it in a Judiciary bill, instead of in a Resources bill, and we will pretend that it is not really about NEPA or that it is about something else.

Actually, this bill is really bizarre because it creates an entirely new

process for reviewing projects by amending the Administrative Procedures Act. It doesn't repeal NEPA.

So, wow, how are those conflicts going to work out? What are the agencies really going to do? I mean, it is gobbledygook legislation on top of making a number of false assertions about what it will accomplish.

What it is accomplishing is it has got a great name. It sounds good. RAPID, I love that name. That is good. We are really good at names around here, but we are not really good at getting things done.

There should be a bipartisan consensus, and there has been during my long tenure in Congress on building things and rebuilding things and building an infrastructure.

You know, it is embarrassing. The United States of America is investing less money in its infrastructure--which is falling apart-- than many third-world countries, and I talked about how we are developing a third-world infrastructure.

I had a colleague who is very knowledgeable on the issue who has come up and said to me: You know, that is insulting. I said: Do you know how bad the state of our infrastructure is? He said: No, it is insulting to third-world countries because they are investing a larger percentage of their gross domestic product in infrastructure than the United States of America is investing.

It is plain and simple. You can dodge. You can weave. You can come up with great names. You can make unbelievable assertions on the floor. The bottom line facts, we need to invest in rebuilding America; and for every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure, it is somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 jobs that are created, and these are private sector jobs.

Private sector jobs, they do the work when the government provides the money to the States, which goes out and competitively bids projects; and they build them, but without money, they aren't going to build them. It doesn't matter what the environmental review process is. No money, no projects.

Drop it, guys. Come on. Let's do something real around here for a change.

Mr. Speaker, I have always said that Congress would need to pass fixes to improve the Affordable Care Act. The original version of the bill that passed the House in 2009, and included my provision to repeal the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by the insurance industry, was much better than the Senate version that ultimately became law. Unfortunately the House Leadership has not allowed us the opportunity to vote on real fixes to the ACA. Instead the Republican leadership continues to engage in an ideological exercise of repeatedly bringing up bills that will never move beyond the House. H.R. 4118 is no different. It won't be taken up by the Senate. The President has threatened to veto it. It is not a real fix.

Instead of bringing up bills that will never become law, Congress should be working on fixes to the Affordable Care Act that will actually help our constituents. Oregonians who want to buy insurance continue to face a state exchange website that does not function. Because of this problem I fought hard to let Oregonians to keep their current insurance plan if they wanted to. Small businesses in Oregon can't use tax credits to help them provide insurance to their employees on the SHOP small business exchange because there still is no SHOP exchange in Oregon, so I am asking for small business tax credits to be available outside of the SHOP exchange.

Americans who want to take personal responsibility for all of their healthcare costs would benefit from an alternative to the individual mandate that I have proposed. My proposal would allow people to opt out of buying insurance without facing a tax penalty as long as they commit to taking full responsibility for any healthcare costs they incur.

Mr. Speaker, due to heavy snow in Oregon, and the associated cancellation of flights out of the State, I am unable to be present for the vote on S. 25. I plan to vote in favor of S. 25. I voted against the Murray-Ryan Budget that put in place the unacceptable cuts to military retirement cost of living adjustments (COLAs). These cuts would have reduced annual COLA for military retirees by 1 percent every year until the service member turns 62. This could be as much as an $83,000 cut over the lifetime of a typical enlisted member who retires after 20 years of service. It is unconscionable that Congress would try to balance the budget on the backs of our military retirees, and I am glad that S. 25 prevents COLA cuts from going into place for all current military retirees and future retirees who are currently serving.

I am also pleased that S. 25 sets aside some funding for preventing Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) cuts to Medicare and TRICARE reimbursements for doctors. I voted against the creation of the faulty SGR formula in 1997 and have fought to fix it ever since. Unfortunately, instead of fixing the SGR Congress has delayed it year after year. This means that if Congress fails to act by March of this year, doctors would face a cut of approximately 27% in their Medicare and TRICARE reimbursements. This is not acceptable. I am hopeful that Congress will use the funds set aside by S. 25 to help pay for a permanent fix to the SGR rather than another delay.

Mr. Chairman, here we are, day two of the House Committee on Natural Resources' measures on the floor. Yesterday we spent the entire afternoon debating, among other things, whether 435 Members of the House were better suited to make decisions about individual Forest Service ranger District Wildlife Management programs or units of the National Park Service's motorized recreation regulations, overturning local managers.

We were told that significant amendments, real amendments about real issues, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they couldn't be offered because we need to respect the legislative process.

Are we respecting the legislative process here today? This bill was introduced last week. No hearings have been held in the committee. No action was taken by the committee. It was written, introduced, and brought directly to the floor of the House of Representatives. That is respect for the legislative process?

Now despite everyone here knowing that we are going to face the worst drought the American West has seen in a century, the committee of jurisdiction has failed to hold even one hearing on current conditions.

In case you have missed the news, here it is: California, driest conditions in over 500 years, extreme drought in 70 percent of the State. Nevada and Oregon, my home State, severe to extreme drought in 80 percent of the State. Idaho, severe to extreme drought in nearly half the State.

To be thinking about how we are going to mitigate this, how we are going to fight the fires, what are we going to do for disaster relief, shouldn't we be looking at reality as opposed to this piece of legislative theater? No.

A number of us on the committee have asked for a hearing, a comprehensive hearing on all the aspects of this drought, and the majority has yet to respond.

Now, this isn't a joke. It is not something we should be playing political games with. Seriously. We have empty reservoirs, unemployed people, yes, tinderbox forests, fallowed fields, and failing fisheries. That calls on us to be bigger and better than playing these stupid partisan games. That is what this is.

Just like the bill yesterday, this bill is not a serious effort to legislate. It is going nowhere. The Governor of California opposes it. Senator Feinstein opposes it. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Oregon are all opposed to the provisions overturning State water law. The party of states' rights overturning State water law? The nonpartisan 18 Governor-appointed Western States Water Council has opposed provisions in this bill overturning State water law.

This bill is a chimera, in the real sense of the word. It is a mythical beast that is part lion, goat, serpent, all in one with the breath of burning flames. Here it comes. It is ugly, it is scary, but it is a fiction. It is not something real. In Greek mythology, the chimera was defeated by a guy named Bellerophon, a great hero-- mythical, but a slayer of beasts. In this case, the U.S. Senate is going to replace Bellerophon.

This is going nowhere. We are fiddling while our forests are going to burn this summer.

The only way out of the current drought conditions is to make the skies open and rain. We aren't making rain today with this bill. We aren't even making law today with this bill. This is cynical. This is embarrassing. We should pull this bill from consideration and actually work on something that will help not only those in California but all of us impacted in the West by this drought.

Let's hold a hearing on this drought. Let's form a task force and come up with real bipartisan solutions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, on January 17, 2014, the Governor of California issued a proclamation, a state of emergency regarding the drought. My amendment simply states that the Secretary of Commerce should treat this emergency proclamation as requested by the Governor under Section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to determine whether there is a commercial fishery failure for any fisheries that originate in the State of California.

Many charter and commercial boat fisheries on the west coast are dependent upon chinook and coho salmon stock that originate in Colorado's rivers and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean, where they are harvested.

Just one of these runs, the fall-run chinook from the Central Valley, turns north, and it makes up as much as 50 percent of the salmon production off Oregon and to areas to the north, and it is responsible for as much as 90 percent of California's salmon catch.

This run and others are in peril due to the drought. The reductions in river flows will impact incubating eggs, juvenile fish that are rearing in the upper regions of the river, and fry that are trying to out-migrate to the ocean.

While many fishing groups are working with Federal and State agencies to plan for the drought conditions and mitigate as much as possible against the potential impacts by facilitating out-migration, we cannot know how successful those efforts will be. While it is likely the drought will not have a large impact on commercial activities this year, many of these fisheries could see devastating impacts over the next several years, particularly in 2015 and 2016.

This amendment does not mandate a fisheries disaster declaration, but it will enable the Secretary to issue one should it be necessary. Such a declaration will enable the fishermen to qualify for disaster assistance. Many of us--whether we are from fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, or the gulf--have dealt with fisheries disasters in the past.

During the last drought in California, I had to literally stalk Secretary Gutierrez of the Bush administration to get a declaration. Joe Barton graciously had him come in to testify and put him in a side room and said, Wait a minute. There are a few Members of Congress who want to talk to you, and it was myself and a number of other Members from California, Oregon, who got him to sign a disaster declaration, and we were successful. Well, this time, let's put it on the desk now and give the Secretary that capability to easily declare a disaster.

While it is clear this drought will have wide-ranging economic impacts, this amendment will put Commerce Secretary Pritzker on notice that we have the potential to face a major economic hardship in the fishing industry as well.

This amendment will ensure that our fisheries and our fishing industries that depend upon salmon stocks from California rivers will be given due consideration as these impacts unfold.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I appreciate his sensitivity to the potential disaster for our fisheries.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the past, I have voted for a number of the sportsmen promotion and protection packages. Unfortunately, it seems this one, with a number of extraneous and detrimental provisions to wilderness, wildlife refuges, and other areas, seems designed to turn what in the past has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of sportsmen's issues into a partisan issue, which is what we do with most everything around here these days, and that is unfortunate because we would be happy to address real problems as they are identified.

In this bill, we are going to essentially amend or override the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Refuge System Administration Act. These are all bedrock environmental provisions which protect public lands and wildlife and have not caused conflicts for sportsmen, hunters, fishers, and others.

Also, we have the throwaway little political thing. The EPA has already said: We don't have the authority to regulate land, and that is the end of it. But we are going to pass a law to say they don't have the authority that they don't have to regulate the land. Okay. Whatever. That is fine.

So then we also have a very broad agreement that hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent activities can and should and have and will, ongoing, take place in wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. In fact, there is so much agreement on this point that existing law clearly supports such activities. As a result, hunting and fishing are popular and commonplace, pursued on public lands, the vast majority of which, outside of national parks in the lower 48, are open to hunting and fishing.

Now, reasonable legislation seeking simply to emphasize the importance of these activities would have been noncontroversial, whatever minor adjustments we might need to make. But to have a blanket exemption for operations in the National Wildlife Refuge System from all environmental planning under NEPA, the purpose of such a broad waiver is unclear, the motivation is unclear. It is definitely and potentially, or at least probably, very--I can't say ``definitely.'' But it could well undermine management in refuges in ways that will actually degrade habitat, which will mean less hunting and fishing opportunities, and degrade water, which means less hunting and fishing opportunities. That seems contradictory to the meritorious title of the bill, which doesn't seem to be reflected in the various parts, some of which have been through hearings, some of which haven't.

Now, the filming on public lands, I haven't heard of the controversy. There are some who purport that there might be some kind of problem for people who want to do hunting and fishing videos, films--I have seen quite a few of them--on public lands. There is no example of a problem that has occurred, but the new authority with a fixed rate of a maximum of $200 for a permit, no matter how much the impact might be of the film crew, and further, to open the door for the use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas for these filming activities is very, very problematic, objectionable, and unnecessary at this point. Again, there has been nothing brought up in a hearing about a credible complaint from a film company that couldn't do its wildlife film or its hunting film because of restrictions that were placed upon them.

It also would allow the construction of temporary roads. Now, I appreciate the fact the manager's amendment is going to prohibit permanent roads within wilderness areas that are designated necessary for access to hunting and fishing, but even temporary roads in wilderness areas for hunting and fishing are a clear and unnecessary degradation, a violation, of the existing Wilderness Act. And many horseback hunters or hunters who access on foot in my State, I have never been petitioned by them to open up roads into wilderness areas so they can better hunt. They are concerned about the ongoing review and closure of roads by the Forest Service, and I have been actively involved in that.

But in this case, we are saying no. Now we can have temporary roads into wilderness areas, something that no one has ever asked me nor made a case that is necessary for hunting. So it is slightly improved from the early versions, but we are still concerned about temporary roads and that is not something we want in our wilderness areas. I don't think that weakening or changing the definition of ``wilderness'' helps expand access for hunting and fishing nor the opportunities in those areas.

Also, the bill has some pretty glaring omissions that actually would tremendously benefit the sportsmen's communities. That would be programs that support wetlands conservation, the preservation of outdoor recreation facilities, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which are key in expanding opportunities or protecting continued opportunities to hunt and fish as we see more and more urban encroachment onto traditional hunting and fishing areas. We could use those tools. We need those tools--they are both expired--and they are not allowed to be part of this package.

There were various other amendments offered that we will get to later in the discussion that were not allowed that could have improved this package. We will go through the amendment process and try to deal with some of the concerns, but at this point, as written and introduced, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), cochair of the Sportsmen's Caucus.

Mr. Chair, I just inquire as to how much time remains on either side?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how many more speakers does the gentleman have?

I have no more speakers except myself, so I would suggest the gentleman go ahead.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) would remain on the floor for a moment, I would like to direct to the gentleman a question about the filming provision. I am curious as to what problems specifically have been identified regarding filming permits. The second question would be: Is it the gentleman's intent that they should be able to use mechanized filming on tracks and otherwise motorized filming in wilderness areas?

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Reclaiming my time, as I understand the current process, there is not one large fee. The fees vary in terms of the agency. If it is a one-person crew or a four-person crew, whatever, the fees would be smaller. If it is a mega film coming from Hollywood, they would charge a larger fee, is my understanding.

I am just wondering if there has been a specific case where someone has come to the gentleman and said, Gee, we are a two-person crew, and they want to charge us $10,000. Do we have any specific examples?

I yield to the gentleman.

Further, the issue of mechanized filming equipment, motorized equipment being used in wilderness areas. And I yield to the gentleman.

Does the gentleman feel that we should waive the Wilderness Act for film crews, but not other activities?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. We have had no testimony before the committee and no specifics were provided here. I believe it is an overly broad provision. If we had cases where extortionate fees were being charged for small groups or unreasonable fees that weren't following this scale basis that the agency tells me they follow, then I would share the gentleman's concerns.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman had remained on the floor for a moment, I was going to direct a question to him, which is: Since the EPA has found it does not have legal authority to regulate these substances, why do we need to pass a law to prevent a law from being passed? Which I guess is what we are trying to do here. In case we wanted to ever consider a law to do this, we would say, Well, we already passed a law to prohibit that.

Because the EPA says they don't have the authority to do this, it is not going to happen. There was a petition filed. It was rejected. End of story.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to ask the chairman a question regarding that, since this is under the jurisdiction of our committee and I am not aware that we held a hearing on this issue.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I have many Corps areas in my district, and I am not aware of restrictions, except there are restricted areas because a number of these projects have sensitive equipment that operate spillways and dams and other things, and those are high security areas post-9/11.

I am wondering if the gentleman's interpretation of this is that it would allow people to carry sidearms into these high security areas.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, a gun owner myself. I haven't had a single complaint about Corps restrictions in my State, and that would include areas where we have had tampering with machinery that relates to spillways and dams--potential terrorism. I wouldn't want to facilitate terrorism.

If we are talking about general Corps areas and lands being managed, fine, but if we are talking about sensitive, secure areas that have to be protected and guarded, I don't see why we would allow civilian firearm carry within those sensitive protected areas, which would make us vulnerable to terrorism.

Terrorists without a weapon, I suppose they could bring in a weapon anyway. They could violate the law, but if someone were noted bringing a weapon into one of those areas now, they would be asked to leave or apprehended.

So I am concerned about those aspects, and I think that my committee and Homeland Security should have looked at this issue before it was brought to the floor without a hearing.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how many more speakers the gentleman has.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would agree with the gentleman. That came out of committee unanimously. It is a true bipartisan proposal. I learned to shoot through the Y in a basement range with a .22. That is where I started. We have got to learn somewhere.

The public lands is another place for families to go and learn to shoot. So that is one of the noncontroversial parts of the bill. In fact, four of the components of this bill could have been brought up yesterday under suspension or even, I believe, unanimous consent. Definitely under suspension. They definitely would have passed them. They have been previously considered by committee, subject to hearings, and the language was agreed upon. Unfortunately, the majority has insisted, although I also believe that the title would get unanimous consent in this body--it is a great title--but sometimes we attach provisions to great titles that aren't necessary or belie that title.

Some of the components of this, which I have talked about--the potential for degradation of wetlands management, wildlife refuge management, intrusions into wilderness areas--are

inappropriate and unnecessary. We can do a little political ``gotcha''--you voted against this bill that has this great title, so that means you are against sportsmen and fishing and hunters and families enjoying those activities.

I am not, and very few, if any, Members of this body are. But, be that as it may, we have pointed out a number of the problems in this legislation.

Legislating is really a pretty difficult exercise, to do real things, to do things that actually would benefit our wildlife resources and hunting and fishing activities. One would be Congressman Daines' proposal to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Every day development proposals move forward that take more and more wildlife areas, more and more wetlands, more and more forests out of access to hunting and fishing and recreation in many cases. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a key in protecting those lands, when jeopardized, and purchasing from willing sellers to prevent that kind of development.

Though we are still collecting the tax that funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund--yes, we are collecting the tax. Even the Republicans haven't proposed that we do away with that tax because they are spending Land and Water Conservation Funds on other things; God only knows what. Some of the earmarks in a bill we will take up later this week. I don't know.

But they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars that are supposed to go to benefit sportsmen and -women, hunters, fishers, wildlife, and protect those areas and manage them reasonably with that full access. They are spending that money somewhere else, so they don't want to take away the tax, but they don't want to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That is a shame, and that would be a much bigger benefit than anything else that we are doing here today.

We have a number of bipartisan wilderness proposals pending: Mr. Reichert, from Washington State, Alpine Lakes; Mr. Benishek, Sleeping Bear Dunes; and others that are pending. Those things would benefit since wilderness does allow hunting and fishing and does provide a degree of protection for those lands that is unparalleled. That would be an experience for horseback hunters, people who walk in on their own two feet. But there are plenty of places to go in a motorized way. It is a little more rare to have an opportunity to do that from horseback or hiking.

But we are not considering those today because those are controversial. So instead, we have this kind of hash that we are calling one thing and doing a number of other things with.

We have the proposal that we have a problem with unidentified film crews who have never come forward, who might be charged too much or need to use motorized equipment in wilderness areas and so, therefore, we are just going to open them up. That is kind of a heck of a way to legislate, really.

We are worried that maybe some units, and definitely the dam areas of the Corps of Engineers, prohibit individuals carrying weapons. That is not exactly an intrusion. They can't carry a weapon into an airport. You can't carry a weapon into the Capitol. You can't carry a weapon into a Federal courthouse, and you can't carry a weapon to a dam site where tampering with equipment could cause a massive flood or dam failure. It makes a little bit of sense to me, but the bill says, no, that is an infringement on the Second Amendment. I think it is a reasonable step by the government. So we are going to open that up, again, without any hearings identifying any problems with access.

I have a lot of Corps projects in my State. I have never had a constituent call and say, gee, I want to go on to this Corps property and bring my gun. I have got a concealed weapons permit, and I have carried a gun on many Federal lands where there is no restriction, and I supported the park provision last year. But we are creating another imaginary problem so we can add yet another title to this hash of a bill. So I am sorry that we are having to go forward in this way.

I did support a less controversial measure for sportsmen heritage in the last Congress, and even that didn't go anywhere in the Senate. This one already has an affirmed veto threat from the White House, and the Senate isn't going to take it up.

But we can pretend we did something here today, and some people get excited about the fact that we did something here today that will never happen. We could, and it is much harder, agree on a bipartisan measure for reasonable measures to protect people's right to hunt and fish and bear arms, but we are not going to do that. So let's get on with the political show.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate there are some clarifications in this amendment which we do support, but there are a few remaining oversights.

There was an amendment by DelBene and Kilmer from Washington State that specified that tribal jurisdiction is not to be infringed upon, where this blanket language in the Hastings amendment protecting tribal rights could well not be read. Supposedly, in a number of places here we are chasing chimeras, you know, illusions, threats, with some of the provisions about the film permitting and that.

But this might be real, which this does not deal with the potential for disputes between tribes and neighboring landowners or between tribes; and so, therefore, it would have been better to have the broader language of DelBene and Kilmer, which specified treaty- protected rights of the individual tribal members are protected, whereas this amendment only protects the rights of the tribe itself. So I worry that we are creating a loophole here that doesn't adequately protect the sovereignty of tribes and all of their members.

The amendment does attempt to address some of the wilderness issues in title VII, the so-called Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Act, which fails to address the wilderness issues in title III, filming on public lands. We have already had extensive discussion of that. No identified problem, no hearing, nobody has ever said we need this, but it is in there. We are going to allow mechanized film crews into wilderness areas.

Then title VII creates a loophole that will allow motorized equipment and vehicles into Federal wilderness areas--now, not with permanent roads, with only temporary roads or driving off-road--to facilitate hunting in wilderness areas or otherwise restricted areas, wildlife refuges and that. And we still find that very problematic.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I believe that the information on the economic impacts of

conservation is important. It is something that we don't quantify very well.

As we have pointed out earlier, some of the provisions of this act, unfortunately, will fly in the face of conservation, the benefits of hunting and fishing activities on public lands.

So I think, actually, on balance, the gentleman's requirement here would be very useful information in the future to help land managers who have to make decisions between opening up lands to mining or to oil and gas development versus the benefits the community could realize or has been realizing or will continue to realize from the recreational hunting and fishing.

Federal lands had become essentially a reservoir, a place where these activities are protected, for the most part, from development, with the exceptions of what I had mentioned earlier. They are some of the premiere destinations for hunting and fishing in the country.

Again, the chairman and I disagree over the merits of acquiring some of these lands which are now in private ownership from willing sellers that potentially will otherwise be slated for development, using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I believe that addressing the Land and Water Conservation Fund proactively would have been useful.

For certain, given the objections to that--because it has not yet quite expired, even though we are underutilizing it and using the tax dollars somewhere else--the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has expired. The Dingell-Wittman amendment was proposed to reauthorize that critical program, and that was not allowed. So that would also be something that would show a measurable benefit.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman, and I want to congratulate him on his diligence and on his foresight here to propose this amendment. It was an oversight in replacing the current council with a new membership. I am not exactly certain why we need to do that because we haven't heard particular complaints.

In any case, this is an improvement upon the newly recommended council to include minorities and women fully engaged, since I see a lot of those folks out in the back country in my State, and I am sure you do in Texas, too.

So I am pleased that for one brief moment here, we have a bipartisan consensus. With that, I congratulate the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

Texas is batting .100 here today.

I would like to thank the gentleman for improving the proposed composition of the council. I thought your points about the healing that can come from wounded warriors being in these precious natural areas in our country is very well taken, and I appreciate that.

Not to create any discord at the moment, but there was another amendment that wasn't allowed by the Rules Committee, offered by the gentleman from California, Representative Ruiz, which is in the purview of the gentleman whose bill is on the floor today, which would have waived recreation fees for veterans with disabilities, and I hope we can revisit that issue in the future.

I congratulate the gentleman on his improvement and his recognition of our veterans.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Ellison, who is detained at the White House, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I want to applaud the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Ellison, for bringing this amendment to the attention of the House.

We have had endless debate about the appropriate role of the National Environmental Policy Act in both the Natural Resources Committee as well as the House Committee on Transportation.

The underlying bill, H.R. 3590, includes language which would eliminate the need for the Fish and Wildlife Service to disclose, analyze, and take comments on decisions related to management decisions in national wildlife refuges.

I repeat that. They would not have to analyze or take comments from either side on decisions that relate to management decisions in national wildlife refuges. Never has there been a case made here during the lead-up to this bill, such as there was, and during the debate why we need this very broad NEPA exception which would, if they want to increase hunting, no NEPA analysis, if they want to decrease hunting, no NEPA analysis, no opportunity for the public to be involved in the process.

As we learned during the shutdown, the wildlife refuge system provides a tremendous opportunity--some of it very ephemeral in terms of seasons--for duck hunters, fishermen, and other sportsmen and -women across the country. In some densely populated areas like in Congressman Thompson's district, wildlife refuges are some of the only hunting areas open to the public, and especially the disabled public.

Why do we need to cut the public out, including disabled Americans, veterans, anybody, regarding these special places and their management when no evidence has been presented that NEPA is in any way an impediment to refuge management? It is just the standard boilerplate: repeal NEPA anywhere, everywhere, all the time, and maybe sooner or later it might stick. But it won't, given the veto threat on this bill and the fact that the Senate isn't going to act on it. But, anyway, it is in here.

There was an amendment to be offered by Congressman Broun from Georgia--which I was going to strongly support--which would have fixed the bill and probably brought a fair number of votes across the aisle by stripping these extraneous provisions regarding NEPA, wilderness, and everything that is under attack in this bill that doesn't need to be under attack in this bill. But I guess somehow, even though it was made in order, the Republican side has convinced him not to offer the amendment because it would have passed, and it would have made the bill better.

So at this point, at least we could support the Ellison amendment as it relates to national wildlife refuges.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I certainly am not an expert on the gentleman's district and what the exact issue is here; however, I do know that there has been a proposed management plan that has been out for comment since November 8. It will close on Friday. I would hope that the gentleman and concerned parties on either side of the issue have all weighed in to comment because what we are doing here today in this bill will not become law. It is already guaranteed a veto threat. The addition of this to the bill will not help resolve what is a local issue where the Park Service has to weigh comments from motorized users and nonmotorized users and then come to a conclusion weighing those comments and put forward a new management plan. That is the way this is going to get done.

It shouldn't be done from Washington, D.C. We shouldn't be dictating. If we get into every individual land use or access decision being made by every unit of the Park Service, every unit of the Fish and Wildlife Service and their refuges and every unit of the Forest Service and every unit of the BLM, we are going to be pretty busy and be embroiled in a lot of local controversy.

So this, I believe, is premature in that the comment period closes this week and the process will come to a conclusion. Comments will be weighed and a decision will be put out for final comment. It is also, at this point, being added to a bill that is going nowhere.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, we often have conflicts in Oregon. We had a very substantial conflict relating to geese in terms of farmers' fields. The resolution was that the birds protected by the Migratory Bird Act would continue to be protected, but farmers would be able to hunt with the State license--and I don't know about the gentleman's State whether or not a State license would be required--the birds that were not migratory that were becoming pests and were resident in order to protect their crops.

This substantially resolved the problem.

I don't know if a similar fix would work here, but an amendment that gives an open license on the Migratory Bird Act, which has international implications, the migratory bird treaty, seems to me to be an extreme measure in this case. Therefore, we would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have talked about major problems confronting this Congress, and here we are now trying to resolve yet another local conflict.

After considerable complaints by private property owners about hunters encroaching on their land to retrieve their dogs that have gotten lost, driving on their land and that, the Forest Service decided because of the intermingled ownership to prohibit dog deer hunting.

Now comes the gentleman who says, well, we are going to reopen it. We will countermand the locally made decision, but we will have a new process where the private landowners can petition the secretary to re- close certain areas of the area that are now closed that he is reopening because of conflicts with their private property. However, these private property owners' petitions will have to go through the dreaded NEPA process, and that is, for deciding something as minor as that, kind of problematic.

You know, I guess maybe we should have a special day here, and I have some beefs with some Federal agencies ongoing that I would like to settle with legislation, too. Maybe we should have an open amendment process some day where every little local issue we have been dealing with with a Federal agency which is contentious between conflicting users will be decided by the United States Congress in Washington, D.C., not at the local level. That is what we are doing here. It is pretty extraordinary.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I congratulate Mr. Polis and Congressman Kildee, who is detained at the White House, for offering this amendment.

I appreciate that the majority has accepted it. This will be a temporary provision until such a time as the final rule is adopted. There was never, I don't think, intent to have this sort of a blanket ban on snowmobiles, and this would correct that error by the Forest Service as they go through a deliberative process on where, when, and how snowmobiles will access Federal forest lands on a unit-by-unit basis.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of strong international environmental protections in order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President Obama's strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks.

The negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be one of the world's biggest trade agreements, have exposed deep rifts over environmental policy between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. As it stands now, the documents, viewed by The New York Times, show that the disputes could undo key global environmental protections.

The environmental chapter of the trade deal has been among the most highly disputed elements of negotiations in the pact. Participants in the talks, which have dragged on for three years, had hoped to complete the deal by the end of 2013.

Environmentalists said that the draft appears to signal that the United States will retreat on a variety of environmental protections-- including legally binding pollution control requirements and logging regulations and a ban on harvesting sharks' fins--to advance a trade deal that is a top priority for Mr. Obama.

Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said the draft omits crucial language ensuring that increased trade will not lead to further environmental destruction.

``It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,'' Ms. Solomon said. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund have been following the negotiations closely and are expected to release a report on Wednesday criticizing the draft.

American officials countered that they had put forward strong environmental proposals in the pact.

``It is an uphill battle, but we're pushing hard,'' said Michael Froman, the United States trade representative. ``We have worked closely with the environmental community from the start and have made our commitment clear.'' Mr. Froman said he continued to pursue a robust, enforceable environmental standard that he said would be stronger than those in previous free-trade agreements.

The draft documents are dated Nov. 24 and there has been one meeting since then.

The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a ``Report from the Chairs,'' which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes look into the divisive trade negotiations, until now shrouded in secrecy. The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.

But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.

The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: ``While the chair sought to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other parties.''

As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution controls could vary depending on a country's ``domestic circumstances and capabilities.''

In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting off their fins--commonly used in shark-fin soup--and throwing back the sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating countries. At this point the draft says that the countries ``may include'' bans ``as appropriate'' on such practices.

Earlier pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement included only appendices, which called for cooperation on environmental issues but not legally binding terms or requirements. Environmentalists derided them as ``green window dressing.''

But in May 2007, President George W. Bush struck an environmental deal with Democrats in the Senate and the House as he sought to move a free-trade agreement with Peru through Congress. In what became known as the May 10 Agreement, Democrats got Mr. Bush to agree that all American free-trade deals would include a chapter with environmental provisions, phrased in the same legally binding language as chapters on labor, agriculture and intellectual property. The Democrats also insisted that the chapter require nations to recognize existing global environmental treaties.

Since then, every American free-trade deal has included that strong language, although all have been between the United States and only one other country. It appears to be much tougher to negotiate environmental provisions in a 12-nation agreement.

``Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,'' said Jennifer Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative's environmental office. ``Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it's a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don't like it.''

But business groups say the deal may need to ease up. ``There are some governments with developing economies that will need more time and leeway,'' said Cal Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a group of about 100 executives and trade associations that lobbies the United States trade negotiator on the deal. ``When you think about the evolution of labor provisions, you realize how many centuries the development of high standards took.''

Since the trade talks began, lawmakers and advocacy groups have assailed the negotiators for keeping the process secret, and WikiLeaks has been among the most critical voices. The environment chapter is the third in a series of Trans-Pacific Partnership documents released by WikiLeaks. In November, the group posted the draft chapter on intellectual property. In December, the site posted documents detailing disagreements between the negotiating parties on other issues. The site is expected to release more documents as the negotiations unfold.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of my constituents, Laura Mason Caldwell of Eugene, Oregon, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of breast cancer patients. In large part thanks to Laura's work, we have a new law in Oregon that requires doctors to inform patients in writing if they have dense breast tissue. This is a small change that could have a major benefit. Dense breast tissue has been associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and routine mammograms are less likely to effectively detect tumors in women who have dense breast tissue. Had Laura been informed about these risk factors early on, she may have been able to catch her cancer before it spread. Oregonians now have that information, but women in many other states do not. For that reason House leadership needs to bring up the bipartisan Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act, H.R. 3404, for a vote. Passing H.R. 3404 will make sure that women across the country have access to the

information necessary to detect breast cancer early when it is most treatable.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 3811 with significant reservations. There is no question that Americans must be quickly notified if their personal information on Healthcare.gov or a state exchange website is compromised. Current law accomplishes this without a hard and fast deadline. H.R. 3811 aims to add a hard deadline for notification, and that is why I voted for it. Unfortunately the bill is poorly drafted. H.R. 3811 fails to provide any delay for public disclosure if immediate disclosure would derail a federal investigation. Americans have a right to know if their personal information has been stolen or misused, but it is also critical that our federal law enforcement agencies be able to hunt down and prosecute those responsible for a data breach. Republicans need to work with the Administration and Democrats in Congress to come up with a bipartisan solution that makes sure that enforcement can do their job and establishes prompt but reasonable disclosure requirements to protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the arctic vortex blast coincides with the return of Congress to Washington, D.C.; wind chills well below zero.

Now, no surprise, a number of my Republican colleagues who are dyed- in-the-wool climate change deniers, and some of the blathering idiots on talk shows said, Whoa, look at this. Arctic vortex proves that there is no climate change; there is no global warming. It is all a hoax.

Well, I would like to begin this new year with a little optimism, and hope Congress will take on big challenges, some of the biggest challenges of our time, including climate change, but the bizarre theories of the climate change deniers, and the excuses they will use, probably preclude that.

Now, given the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change will spur more extreme weather events, yes, including record cold and arctic vortexes, with shifts in the jet stream, and droughts and a whole host of other things--we had about the driest year on record in the Western U.S. this year, in Oregon and California.

This is a serious challenge. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this Congress, because of denial, is pretty much incapable of dealing with this challenge.

Luckily, we do have an alternative, and that is the President's Climate Action Plan, and the fact that the EPA has been found to have the authority by the Supreme Court of the United States to regulate carbon emissions as pollution. Following through on the President's Climate Action Plan is critical to show the rest of the world that the United States can again lead on this issue, and we are serious about it, and use that leverage to bring other countries into line.

Now, the EU and others are dealing with it, but there is total denial in

China. Back in 2005, the U.S. and China emitted about the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, about 7 million metric tons. Five years later, the U.S. is down a little bit. China is up to 10 million and growing every day. China must be part of this.

Now, how are we going to get countries like China and others lined up on this? Well, I think we have got a strong tool. We can demand reductions. We can demand that trade agreements with these nations will level the playing field in many ways.

We have ignored labor and the environment in many of these trade agreements. We can't put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage when they are dealing with climate change issues and carbon dioxide emissions and the Chinese aren't, because we live, unfortunately, on the same planet as the Chinese, and they are destroying the world's climate very, very quickly.

So, even if we take strong measures here, we have got to force those measures on other countries.

Now, I think that the trade agreements are an ideal place to do this. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is of two minds on this issue. I have been acting very forcefully to protect the President's authority to regulate carbon emissions and encourage the EPA to go ahead with strong measures. The Republicans are attempting to overturn and preempt that authority, but it does exist.

Unfortunately, in the Office of the Special Trade Representative, appointed by the President of the United States, they are busily undermining the President's climate change agenda. Yes, they are acting at complete odds with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The European Union has adopted measures to reduce the global greenhouse gas emissions from all fuels and transportation fuels included by 10 percent within a relatively short period of time. One of those provisions would score the dirtiest sources of fuels as the way they should be, for emitting more carbon. That would mean there would be a penalty against oil, gasoline, diesel extracted from tar sands-- the dirtiest, most polluting way to obtain oil that anyone knows of.

Now, the European Union is moving ahead, but now the President's Special Trade Representative, appointed by the President, somehow is saying that the EU shouldn't do this; the U.S. objects to that, and they are in league with Canada in attempting to overturn these steps by the European Union.

The President needs to rein in his Special Trade Representative, and we need to protect and encourage the President to deal with this very serious issue.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, on the 50th anniversary, the Republicans just got it a little bit wrong. The war on poverty, they thought it was the war for poverty as they are dismantling one by one the most important programs that help lift and keep people out of poverty, like extended unemployment insurance.

Let me read a few subjects here.

Roseburg, Oregon. A 61-year-old woman working since she was 14:

I don't know if it is my age, but I am having great

difficulty finding a job.

A 62-year-old woman from Coos Bay, Oregon, went back to her former employer and said: ``Are you hiring?'' He said: ``You can't be serious. Not at this time of year. Come back in the spring.'' Unfortunately, she can't make it until spring.

A Eugene veteran. A two-income family, but she lost her job:

Since I haven't been able to find a job, we are close to

losing our house and declaring bankruptcy. I am actively

seeking employment every day.

Then we go to Springfield, Oregon, my hometown. We have a woman whose son is in the Army. She says:

I can't find a job. I have been looking. I have to give

notice to my landlord and become homeless.

Then Corvallis, Oregon. A 54-year-old man. He had been working his whole life since 17. In his last job, he was there for 13 years, but he can't find a job and he is going to be forced into homelessness.

Then, finally, another gentleman from Springfield, Oregon:

$330 a week I received wasn't much, but it helped keep me

from having to go to food banks and asking for help. We went

just before Christmas. The food bank had run out of food. I

have to decide now whether to buy medicine or food or heat my

house.

That is the legacy of the cruel cuts of these Republicans. These are people, hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they want to work. If they fall into poverty, they lose their home, they lose their cell service, their telephone, their car. How are they ever going to get a job? We need to help them now before they fall even more off the cliff. Extend unemployment benefits today as a celebration that we, as the American people, do not tolerate poverty in this country.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the chairman for his tremendous efforts on this. I believe this is an improvement over the SHIELD Act, which Jason Chaffetz and I authored a couple of years ago.

Here is the thing: we have got a nationwide protection racket going on here. It is a little more sophisticated than the gang that says, Hey, we are going to smash the windows of your store unless you pay us 50 bucks a week.

What you have here are hugely sophisticated, well-funded patent assertion entities across America; and they did file 62 percent of the patent litigation, not 5 percent, as we heard earlier asserted by one of my colleagues. The payoff here is that if you pay us $50,000, we won't drag you through endless court proceedings that will cost you $1 million or more. All they have to do is assert something very vague, such as we own this patent and you are infringing on it. That is it. That is all they have to assert.

It is up to the small business to figure out what that infringement is, which means they have to hire attorneys, they have to go through discovery, which is an incredibly lengthy and expensive process. I found out about this in my district while visiting a small software firm with less than 100 people that was about to launch a new product, and the owner told me it is going to be delayed because I had to hire new employees to launch this product, but I have got a shadow over the business right now. I said, What is that? The owner said he had been sued over a patent troll. They are claiming that this very simple, common thing that is part of their software is their patent and they must pay them $200,000 to make them go away. He said, I can't do an expansion and $200,000.

His company can't be named because these patent trolls are so aggressive. When NPR ran a story about this--and one company was featured with an egregious story of one of these patent trolls, one of these blackmailers. They went public, and then they immediately got a pile of new assertions on them by patent trolls. The patent trolls have lots of attorneys, lots of money. It is a very lucrative extortion racket to go out and do this.

Some companies will fight. EMC out of Massachusetts fought. The claims were totally specious, but they fought. This is what it takes. They had to go to this one district in Texas where all these cases are heard. They had to go to one hotel and rent it for their team. The electricity wasn't adequate. They didn't have broadband. They had to install all that so they could be there and defend themselves because no one goes there to defend themselves against these patent trolls. It is too expensive. They just pay the bribes.

They went there, and it cost them over $2 million. The jury was out less than 10 minutes because it was a totally specious claim. Most things don't go that far because most people have to pay because they can't afford the disruption or the litigation; or other times after they are halfway through paying for the litigation, the patent assertion entities drop their false claims.

Some people are saying we are closing the courthouse door, we are barring litigation here. In fact, the standard is no reasonable basis in law and fact. Universities and innovators don't bring those kinds of suits. Patent trolls do.

Stop the patent trolls.