Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

My friend from Arizona and I agree many times on many issues, but this is one on which I must disagree.

There has been a lot of discussion about reform in the farm bill. I think before I go down and list some of the reform that is being considered in this current farm bill, I think we have to step back and look at what has transpired with the 2002 farm bill.

The 2002 farm bill actually cost $25 billion less than what it was originally projected to cost. Let me repeat that. This is a Federal program that actually came in $25 billion less than what it was budgeted. I would ask my friend from Arizona; name me another mandatory program in the last 5 years that has come in under what was originally projected.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office projection for what farm policy will cost has imposed for the baseline going forward a $60 billion reduction over what was originally planned in 2002. The reason that that reduction is in place and the reason that this bill came in $25 billion less than what it was projected is because it was working the way it was supposed to.

And it was designed when commodity prices were low for there to be a safety net so that we could preserve that farm infrastructure. When the commodity prices are high, then the safety net was not available because there was no need for that safety bill. So when you look at the reform, $60 billion sounds like a lot of reform to me. Now I don't know about out in Arizona, but $60 billion in Texas is a lot of money.

Additionally, one of the things, and I think the chairman alluded to this, is that both in the House and the Senate bill, the three-entity rule has been eliminated bringing some transparency; in other words, being able to boil it down, who is actually farming, and making sure that the farm safety net is actually available to those people that are involved, actively engaged in farming.

The other thing that is going on here is that with the elimination of that three-entity rule, it is estimated that some 50 percent reduction will be affected, some of the operations that are

currently under this bill. So that is a fairly good reduction when you look at 50 percent for some of those operations.

Compared to the House and the Senate version, quite honestly, a $10,000 reduction has been on the table over the original House version. As the chairman mentioned, these discussions are still under way and we don't know what that final number is going to be.

The other thing, and the chairman also alluded to this, because there has been a lot of discussion about are these payments going to millionaire farmers. And so one of the things that we have taken is steps to materially reduce the adjusted gross income figure, some 70 percent reduction.

Now I think the point that the chairman was trying to make, and it is a very important point, 30, 40, years ago farmers across America could farm a small piece of land and make a good living. Today, in a global economy where they are competing with producers all over the world, what they are faced with is, how do they get to a size that makes sense with today's cost of production and with today's cost of tractors and all the equipment necessary. And the days of a small farm being able to support a family are gone. So today, many farmers in my district, for example, are farming 3,000 and 4,000 and 5,000 acres, and this is still a family farm. This is not a company that has a lot of employees; this is a family farm. And so when you look at those numbers, it takes a lot of money, it takes a lot of capital and investment for them to produce this many acres.

Farmers are taking a big risk today. Yes, the commodity prices are up, and that is a good thing for farmers and producers. The bad news for them, though, is that their costs are up as well. Looking across fuel and fertilizer and all of those, in just the last few years production costs for commodities is up almost 25 percent.

One of the things that, as we look at this farm bill, I think we have to step back and look at it and I think sometimes I get kind of amused. As we talk about this farm bill, only about 12 percent, Mr. Speaker, 12 percent of this farm bill actually has anything to do with production of agriculture. A good portion of this farm bill has to do with food stamps and nutrition programs and conservation programs. While those may be worthy, I am not here to debate those, when we look at the production of the agriculture part, the part that actually allows American agriculture to produce food and fiber for Americans, we are talking about 12 percent of this bill having anything to do with that.

So when you step back, why is that important to America? Why should America be concerned about having a good, strong agricultural industry in this country? Well, I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we are watching with amazement as we look at people, Americans across America having to pay $3.50 a gallon for gasoline. We have seen tremendous increases. This country today is energy dependent. That means that we wake up every morning looking for some other country to furnish the energy that it takes to run our country's economy. It is, quite honestly, a security risk to our country as well as an economic security risk to our country. And so how did we get in that situation is because we let America's infrastructure for producing energy fall to the wayside. We did not make it a priority.

My greatest fear here today is that, as we move forward, if we begin to undermine American agriculture, who will then feed and clothe Americans in the future? Do the American people want to wake up every morning and wonder where we are going to get our next meal? What country is going to feed us?

Because we let American agriculture infrastructure fall to the wayside. Our producers are competing on an unlevel playing field. I wish the playing field was level. If the playing field was level, we wouldn't need any of these programs, because American producers can compete with anybody in the world on a level playing field.

Unfortunately, the WTO discussions that we have been involved in have not yielded much fruit. Many countries that our producers are competing with all across the world are competing against other countries that provide subsidies at a much greater level than we are providing under this underlying bill.

So while I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's concern about being fiscally responsible, I understand that he would like to see some reforms. I am here tonight to tell him that there are a lot of reforms in this bill. But at the same time, it is important to have a balanced bill to make sure that we have a strong agricultural economy in this country from this point forward so that when Americans wake up every morning, they are not going to worry about who is going to feed or clothe them.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, I was unexpectedly absent from rollcall votes 164, 165, and 166.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 164, H. Res. 1084, ordering the previous question on H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes.

On rollcall 165, on agreeing to H. Res. 1084, the Rule for H.R. 2016, to establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall 166, H. Res. 1077, calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedom of all Tibetans, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, as the city of Lubbock turns 100 years old, I could not be more proud to be part of a wonderful community that has grown to embrace all that is good in America. The traditional values upon which this country was founded still flourish and are taught to the next generation here.

The history of Lubbock is a story of men and women that came to this region with a dream. They came with a determination that would be tested over and over again. That ``can-do'' spirit turned this remote area of the High Plains of Texas into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. My grandfather came to Lubbock in 1909 to be part of this new community. Over the past 100 years, many visionary citizens stepped forward to build and strengthen this growing and developing town. Now today, because of their efforts, Lubbock is not only an important agricultural area, but it is also a city of world-class educational and medical facilities and the regional distribution center for the entire South Plains and part of New Mexico.

As we celebrate the past, let us look forward with great anticipation toward the future. Lubbock is not just a city celebrating 100 years. it's home to me. I am proud to call Lubbock home and am honored to represent each its residents in the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mrs. Annette Sykora of Slaton, Texas, on becoming chairwoman of the National Automobile Dealers Association. Annette comes from a family of auto dealers and is the dealer principal of Smith South Plains Ford/Mercury in Slaton, Texas, and South Plains Ford/Lincoln Mercury/Dodge/Jeep/ Chrysler in Levelland, Texas.

From an early age, Annette knew her heart was in the automobile business. At age 19, she told her father of her dream that one day she would run his dealership. By age 26, she was general manager, and by 29 she had a controlling share of the store.

In addition to running a successful business, Annette is also an active leader in her community. She is the chair of the finance committee of the First United Methodist Church of Slaton and serves as board member of the Slaton Chamber of Commerce.

As chairwoman of the NADA, Annette wants to strive to help connect domestic dealerships with valuable resources that are available through the NADA. Car dealerships in Texas alone bring in $55 billion of revenue and employ more than 85,000 people. She also brings years of hard work and experience, as well as a message of hope for the future of domestic dealerships in America.

I, along with all the citizens of Slaton, am proud to celebrate Annette Sykora as the first woman to become chair of the NADA. I wish her continued success.

Madam Speaker, I proudly congratulate St. Anthony's School on the occasion of its 90th anniversary. The school's 90th anniversary was celebrated along with Catholic Schools Week from January 27-February 2, 2008.

St. Anthony's began providing Catholic education in 1914 with the purpose of supplying children with knowledge of the Catholic faith, as well as a strong foundation for future learning. In 1917-1918, continuous classes were introduced. St. Anthony's moved to its current location in 1955 where 14 classrooms, a library, a meeting room, a cafeteria and a gym now make up the school.

Throughout its history, several orders of religious nuns have staffed the school. Presently, the Franciscan Sisters of Mary Immaculate make up the faculty. They have taught and maintained St. Anthony's since the 1987-1988 school year.

St. Anthony's provides classes from pre-school through sixth grade. The school remains focused on teaching the Catholic faith while also providing the opportunity for students to acquire the skills needed to achieve high honors upon entering the Hereford Independent School District upper grades. Students participate in acts of service, the Accelerated Reading Program and after-school activities such as sports or choir. The six-member board of education along with Principal Ann Lueb and Rev. John Valdez govern the school and determine policies.

During the 90th anniversary celebration, Dolores Loerwald Brorman was presented with the 2008 National Catholic Education Association Distinguished Graduate Award. The award recognizes individuals who have made a significant contribution to American society and the Catholic Church and has been presented to a deserving graduate of St. Anthony's School every year since 1993.

I applaud St. Anthony's school for providing quality education and developing knowledgeable and honorable students for 90 years. Also, I congratulate Dolores Loerwald Brorman on receiving the 2008 Distinguished Graduate Award and making such a mark in her community.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize one of my distinguished constituents, SPC Russell W. Byers, who has recently been honored with the Army Commendation Medal from the Department of the Army.

SPC Russell W. Byers is attached to the Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion of the 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment. He was awarded this citation by the Secretary of the Army for ``Meritorious service during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' The award further commends Specialist Byers, stating ``Your Tactical and technical proficiency, hard work and mission dedication have greatly contributed to the overall mission success of the task force. Your actions reflect great credit upon you, Task Force Panther and the United States Army.''

This is Specialist Byers' first commendation, and was presented to him after a one year tour in Iraq. Duties he performed to receive this high honor include being an expert on the Command Post of the Future (CPOF) computer system, where he gathered, analyzed and developed vital intelligence for the Task Force. In addition, he gathered intelligence from HUMINT, prepared summarized reports and organized data, maintaining a complex database that captured all the significant enemy activity within the Task Force's combat zone.

In the recommendation letter for this medal, Specialist Byers' superior officer wrote, ``SPC Byers' ability to multi-task and present information in a clear and consistent manner is of the highest military standards. He is extremely diligent and competent in accomplishing all assigned tasks with little or no supervision, while producing dynamic results. SPC Byers leads the way with a `can do' attitude and an outstanding drive to go the distance, even when it requires him to go above and beyond his assigned scope of duties and responsibilities. He is well ahead of his peers in military bearing and fortitude.''

I am well aware that there are thousands upon thousands of soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors that earn prestigious citations such as this, but I am excited that a proud son from West Texas is among them.

Congratulations SPC Russell W. Byers; you have served your country with distinction. I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of a grateful Nation, and especially your neighbors in the 19th Congressional District. We all sleep well every night, knowing dedicated people like you are defending all we hold dear.

Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations about the effectiveness of this economic stimulus package and its impact on our Federal deficit; however, I am going to support it. One of the reasons I am going to support this package is it takes an important step toward providing more options for homeowners and homebuyers in America. By temporarily increasing the size of mortgages for our GSEs and FHAs, they will be able to purchase mortgages in high-cost areas across the country where some of those people

have been locked out of those particular markets.

By bringing additional buyers into this marketplace and rather than leaving them on the sidelines, we are going to help reduce housing inventories that, as you know, have been increasing all across the country. Increasing these conforming loan limits for these particular entities adds additional liquidity to a marketplace that is in dire need of additional liquidity and will help provide additional mortgages around the country.

However, their taking this action is not nearly enough. Congress has completed important legislation that reforms FHA, and we must complete this legislation. We have passed legislation that brings reform to our GSEs. It's time for Congress to sign that legislation as well. We need to do this without siphoning important resources from these entities at a time where we are going to be relying on them to help provide additional mortgages and liquidity in the marketplace.

In order to increase the loan limits to have its full desired effects, we need to also make sure that we increase the portfolio caps of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congresswoman Bean and I have introduced legislation to increase these caps, and I urge the administration and Congress to act on these immediately. This marketplace is in need of liquidity, and by raising the loan portfolio limits and the caps, it will allow Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and FHA to come into the market and help bring back additional robustness in those markets.

In hindsight, we see that borrowers, lenders and investors made poor decisions. In Congress' attempt to help stabilize this downturn we must avoid more poor decisions.

Congress must ensure that we cause no further harm as we facilitate bringing more liquidity to the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I believe there is a concept that I strongly support, and one that I think a lot of Members of this body support, that when government is too prescriptive, then good ideas and innovation get suppressed. This is the reason I brought forward this amendment, because in H.R. 3524, it requires that all housing units demolished under the HOPE VI grant program be replaced on a one-for-one basis. What we know is that this is a new provision in the HOPE VI program. One of the things that concerns me most about this is in many cases it is not necessarily feasible for us to go back on a one-for-one basis, nor may it be a need in that particular community.

Chairman Waters and I had a chance to travel down to New Orleans and see some of the activities going on down there, and what we saw is some units that were brought back on a one-for-one basis that were vacant, were unoccupied, which indicated there may be some resistance to coming back to that particular neighborhood.

What we also know with the HOPE VI program is that this program was designed to replace some very terrible housing conditions, an old, failed system of putting all of these low-income systems in a very concentrated area, and we found out very quickly that that was not a successful program. So now with this particular legislation we are going to go back and say we didn't learn our lesson the first time; we are going to go back with these kinds of concentrations in these neighborhoods, which have already shown to fail.

The other thing that I think needs to be brought out is in some cases there may be land constraints that make this not feasible to go back for one-for-one. The second piece of it is that housing and demographics have changed since a lot of these units have been built.

What we are learning now is that we can do these mixed-use projects where we bring moderate and low-income families together and not putting all of these low-income families in one place. We have also learned a lot about the density, the environment, where we have open spaces for children to play, and we are not forcing them to play in the streets.

So there's a lot of things that we do better now, but we are trying to limit using some of those new techniques and new innovations in housing by going back to the old model.

One of the things that I think has been brought out in this debate is that this is not a debate about whether HOPE VI is a good program or not. I want to be clear about that, that when I stand before this body today and say we shouldn't be too prescriptive, I am not talking about not funding this HOPE VI program or reauthorizing it. I think we did some things that actually did make this better, but being too prescriptive begins to deny the ability of communities to sit down and decide what is the best footprint to provide good quality housing for our low-income residents, and they deserve that. For us to stand up and say this body of 435 here and 100 on the other side, that we know more about what the housing needs are in these communities around America, I think is a little ludicrous.

We need to empower the local governments and the housing authorities to be able to sit down and say, look, we have got these old and dilapidated units, people don't want to live in them, some are vacant, some are occupied, and some of them probably shouldn't be occupied, but for the United States Congress to say we know more about your housing needs in your community, I think is poor policy.

That is the reason I am going to be encouraging my colleagues today to vote for the Neugebauer amendment that takes out the provision of being too prescriptive, allowing American cities and communities and housing authorities to make the right decisions for our low-income folks.

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

I thank the gentleman. I do understand that there could be a small minority of housing authorities trying to accomplish some purpose by keeping those units vacant, but I would say we are being probably more prescriptive for the ones that are vacant.

If the gentleman would yield, I would appreciate working with the gentleman on that particular provision of making sure that those units that are not habitable now would not be counted.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, due to official business in my district, I missed rollcall votes 1145 through 1155 on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1145.

On rollcall vote 1146, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1147, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1148, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1149, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 1150, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1151, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 1152, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1153, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1154, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 1155, 1 would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this legislation, not because of the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship that was used to come to this conclusion, but because of a philosophical difference. I believe that when markets have their ups and downs that it is better for the Federal Government not to try to intervene in those market cycles, so I think it is better to have better information than to have regulation when it comes to the issue of subprime mortgages.

I have a little bit of experience in the mortgage business in that I was a mortgage originator. I was a homebuilder. I have sold and bought loans in the secondary market and I have owned a home and borrowed money on many mortgages. What I know is the system has worked, and we have record homeownership here in America today because we have had one of the most efficient mortgage markets in the world.

But what I do know is an important part of that transaction is that everybody in the transaction understands what the nature of the transaction is.

That is the reason I worked in a bipartisan way with the chairman and ranking member, along with my colleagues Mr. Green and Mr. McHenry, to make sure that we had a better disclosure piece of information for borrowers to look at, a universal box, if you would, that would allow borrowers to understand all of the terms and conditions of this mortgage and to be able to compare that out in the marketplace. Because what we do know is there is a lot of opportunities for people to get mortgages in this country today, or have been up to this point. What we want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, is in the future that they have that. But when they do take out that mortgage, they have the ability to look at the loan terms, the prepayment penalty, does this loan rate vary, and, if it does, what are the implications to that borrower. Because I believe, as one of my colleagues said earlier, the American people have the ability to make good choices when they are given good information.

So, I am pleased that in this particular piece of legislation there is a disclosure box that will help our consumers do a better job of making that decision in the future.

What I am disappointed in, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we are going to, I think, put some very restrictive regulation on a market that may limit the ability for people to actually use that disclosure information in the future.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the manager's amendment to H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. I think some of us had a concern early on that converting any of these monies to operating monies was a precedent we didn't want to move down. I think the purpose of the bill is to build housing. Although I believe this does help some of our very low income families, we would hope that they would not have to use any of that allocation for that. But this amendment does give them the flexibility to do that, and so we will support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think anytime that we can make sure that our people involved in housing, homeowners, renters, everybody, has the appropriate counseling is a good strategy, because in many cases what we find is people lose their assets or lose opportunities because they did not take advantage of some of the things that are available to them.

So I thank the gentleman from Florida for introducing that amendment. We support his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, certainly I think that anytime we are

going to be investing Federal dollars in any housing in the future, we need to make the sure the houses are as energy efficient as they possibly can be. And as I understand the gentleman's amendment, this would be about making sure, in consideration for granting funds for that, that the construction, the design, all of the phases of creating housing in this country would take into account the utility costs and, hopefully, the overall operating costs of those projects.

So with that, we support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the chairman of the full committee that we do need to make sure that our first responders and teachers and people that we rely on to serve our communities be able to live in the communities that they are working in.

I think this is a good amendment, and we are not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think we want to make sure that any new housing that's done is energy efficient and also meets as many green criteria.

One of the things I would encourage and would hope that the chairman would work with me in is in the final version of this bill I would hope that, once we conference that, the National Association of Home Builders has been involved in green building for a number of years and has set up a lot of information.

So one of the things that you and I have talked about is we want to try to make this money go as far as we possibly can and avoid as much duplication as we can.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. Accountability in any government program is always welcome, and I thank the gentleman for offering this.

We need to make sure that, as we are passing out these monies, we want them to go as far as they can, we want them to go to people that can actually deliver what they said in their grant proposals and in their quest in their housing proposals, and so I support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I was really tempted here to let the chairman be my designee on this, with the hopes that I would have the same success on my amendment as he had on those that he was acting as designee on, but since I'm here, I'll act in my own behalf.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things we've heard a lot today about is that there is a need for making sure that we are taking care of our most neediest Americans when it comes to their housing needs. What we've also learned, though, is that there are a lot of programs out there, 70 something housing programs, 30 some odd that may be addressed as some form of housing for our low-income citizens.

One of the things that I think the American people are kind of concerned about is they keep hearing that government solution to all of the problems. If we're not doing a good job with the programs we have, let's add another program, and I think they're getting kind of tired of that. So one of the things that my amendment does is it makes an existing program, it incorporates many of the good ideas, and may I say, Mr. Chairman, there are some good ideas that have come in this particular piece of legislation, updating it. And what I'm talking about is the HOME program. The HOME program currently does a lot of the functions. In fact, when you look at the HOME program in this bill, many of those overlap. And yet we're now going to separate into two different funds an affordable housing fund and a HOME program. Instead of using the combined resources of those two programs to help further the housing situation, we're going to have two different.

When we talk about the fact that we're already spending over $28 billion for affordable housing, low-income housing, and then we're going to take money out of one pocket and put it over to an area separate from that, quite honestly, Congress will not have the opportunity to really sit down and assess, hey, where are the American people, where are the people that are the recipients of low-income money, the people who are benefiting from this housing, where are we getting the best bang for our buck? But instead, we are separating those programs. I don't think that is good policy.

The other issue here is that many communities, almost every State in the Union, and I think like 350 or 360, maybe it's a larger number, I don't have it in front of me, communities are already participating in the HOME program, they already have some familiarity with that program. And so now we're going to take the ramp-up time of having to learn a new program, to write the rules for it, to do all of the things that it takes to get a new program off the ground. We're going to have to form a new branch of government within the Department of Housing to be able to ramp up and have the employees that it needs to do this, another inefficiency of adding additional programs to something that maybe we're not satisfied with. And I would agree, there may be some things that need to happen in the HOME program that would make it more relevant today. But, quite honestly, adding a new program I don't think is in the best interest of the American people. It's not a good, wise use of their taxpayer dollars. And I believe we can create a more efficient delivery system using an existing program.

What my amendment also does is says, look, GAO, go in and analyze what's going on, work with the various housing partnerships, let's determine some of the things that we need to do to the HOME program. Let's make those changes, and then let's make the HOME program a better program incorporating many of the good ideas, even that we've seen in some of the amendments here.

Mr. Chairman, we had, I believe, seven amendments from the Democratic side, unfortunately, and I appreciate the Rules Committee making mine in order, but I think we had some other good ideas from some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle that we could have incorporated into this legislation.

So that's the reason I'm down on the floor today offering this amendment. I'm encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you're really serious about two or three things, and let's talk about those things; one, are you interested in making sure that we have the most efficient delivery system to our low-income families to make sure that they have housing? If you're interested in that. Secondly, if you want to do that in a way that's a good steward of the American taxpayer's dollars, that's another reason to vote for this amendment. And thirdly, if you believe that we ought to be able to prioritize our spending and not separate into a different fund, separate and aside from what we're already doing for a lot of our low-income housing families, then the Neugebauer amendment is the amendment that you should vote on. It will actually move us more quickly in a direction of being able to implement a lot of the things that I think people on both sides of the aisle want to do, and that is, make sure that we get the money out to these families that need our assistance and help.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who is the former ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that 50 States, 585 local communities, are already using the HOME program as a model for building and developing low-income housing in their communities. It just makes sense that we take an existing program, make the revisions that have really made, there are some good ideas that have come through this legislation, let's incorporate those ideas into the HOME program. Let's take an existing vehicle. Let's ask the United States Congress to prioritize where they think that we are getting the most bang for our bucks as we deliver low-income housing programs for the American people and for the people that need them so badly. Let's do it right. The right way to do it is to take this existing program and fold into it many of the good ideas that have come from that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1983, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act, and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

In 2003, with the collaboration of agriculture, pesticide manufacturers and public interest organizations, Congress established a new fee schedule and registration process timeline for the Environmental Protection Agency, This Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) was designed to improve pesticide registration and review, and PRIA has been extremely successful for all parties involved.

As the Ranking Member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over pesticide issues, I am pleased the stakeholders have again worked with Congress and the EPA This bill today continues and builds upon the successful pesticide registration process over the next five years.

Before PRIA, applicants for pesticide registration had no certainty on how long the review process at EPA would take or how much they would need to pay in fees. The EPA was under pressure from the public interest community to reassess tolerances for pesticides already registered as required under the Food Quality Protection, Act. As a result, consumers who depend on effective and safe pesticide products were not always able to take advantage of new products. Delays impacted farmers' ability to access improved plant protection and pest products.

PRIA worked because it set a firm fee schedule for pesticide registration applicants, giving the EPA resources needed to do reviews. In return, the EPA was held to specific timelines in its reviews and approvals. PRIA also enabled the EPA to complete tolerance reassessments for products approved in the past through product maintenance fees from manufacturers.

By continuing the fees and increasing registration funding, S. 1983 provides the EPA with the resources needed to maintain this successful system. Additionally, the bill continues the periodic review of registered products, requiring the EPA to reassess each product every 15 years.

The pesticide registration and review process must be based on sound science. Success also requires confidence in the regulatory system. This reauthorization and enhancement of PRIA helps ensure that the EPA is using the best science to review applicants. Timelines for reviews bring more transparency to the process, and this transparency gives confidence to pesticide users such as agriculture, manufacturers and the public interest community.

I urge my colleagues to support continuation of this successful regulatory process that has brought effective and safe products to market not only for agriculture but for all consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. Two important issues are going on in our country right now. One of those we are talking about on the floor of the House today, and that is Americans' safety in the air, making sure when our American citizens travel across the country they are doing it in a safe way.

The other issue that is important to the United States Congress and to the American people is energy. One of the things that we know today is wind energy, a renewable source of energy, is

becoming a predominant piece of the solution for the future.

Several months ago I convened in Abilene, Texas, at Dyess Air Force Base, members of Department of Defense, Department of Energy, FAA and other agencies talking about how in the future, as we develop more renewable sources, particularly wind energy, how we make sure that there is a compatibility between air safety and providing energy for the American people.

What we decided was that there needs to be a repository, a place where data is maintained on the effects of certain kinds of wind turbines on radar, where the proper placement is so they can continue to be a vital part of our energy supply, while at the same time making sure the American people are safe.

This amendment provides for a study to study all of the components that need to go into that database and that repository to make sure that we have all of the bases covered. This is kind of a proactive step. What we are intending to do here, as people are planning these kinds of projects, there is a place where people can go where they can get the information up front rather than in hindsight after that project has moved along.

There is a lot of support for this amendment from the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and other agencies thinking this is the right step.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, who has worked tirelessly for transportation issues over a number of years.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman.

As I close, I just want to say, in many cases people bring problems to the United States Congress and we set out to try to solve those problems.

In this situation, these agencies are working together already. They are bringing a commonsense solution to this issue. I think this is a good policy for our country and for the American people as we make sure that they fly safely in the future, and also make sure that they have an appropriate energy supply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest birthday wishes to an American institution that has helped provide freedom and liberty for all of us that we enjoy today, and that is the Department of Air Force.

It was 60 years ago, following the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, that W. Stuart Symington was sworn in as the Nation's first Secretary of the Air Force, chosen to lead an organization finally given its rightful place in the brand new Department of Defense. The Air Force has gone on to become one of the steadfast defenders on high, enabling us to live in relative peace and tranquility knowing that they are always there literally keeping a watchful eye on our Nation.

Since its inception, the Department of the Air Force has been a global leader in perfecting and applying cutting-edge research and development. Whether it was the transition from the propeller to jet engines to the use of computer-aided weaponry incorporating satellite technology to today's use of unmanned aerial vehicles taking soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen off the battlefield, the Air Force has always been the leader in the ``Revolution in Military Affairs.''

Whether it's patrolling the desert skies during Operation Northern Watch or deterring looming Iraqi aggression during Operation Vigilant Warrior, both in the 1990s, the men and women of the Air Force are constantly reminded that peace is not always peaceful.

Providing a multitude of services to their fellow warriors on the ground, along with dominating the skies against our enemies, they have played a critical role in not only defending America's interests abroad but being ambassadors of goodwill.

Just ask the airmen who sit on constant alert in the Central Command ready to deliver relief aid, as they did last summer during the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, delivering more than 10 tons of food and supplies to the region. Foreign citizens and Americans alike were once again blessed by the humanitarian spirit of the Air Force.

Today I rise not just as a proud American but as a Member of Congress who is blessed with the good fortune of representing the brave men and women of the 7th Bomb Wing and the mighty C-130 Hercules of the 317th Airlift Group at Dyess Air Force Base. Just last week I met with several of them before they deployed overseas, and I was swept away by their overwhelming courage and resounding spirit. Americans know that when airmen put on their flight suits, they are not just putting it on for themselves but for all Americans. They do it for others and they continue to do it so we can all live freely.

In the relatively short time the Air Force has been in existence, its contributions to America's security have been historic. America owes the United States Air Force a debt of gratitude for all that they have given us and will continue to give us, without fear or hesitation. They are always the backbone of our projected forces.

I wish them a very happy 60th birthday and best wishes for another successful 60 years.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Southwest Digest for 30 years of service in the Lubbock community. Over the past 30 years, the Southwest Digest has provided the African American community of Lubbock with news and current events. The newspaper has strongly advocated for economic and community development and against drugs and violence. Its editors have also focused on the special needs of senior citizens, young people, and the poor in the community.

Eddie Richardson and T.J. Patterson co-founded the Southwest Digest in 1977. In addition to their work with the newspaper, both men have been active in serving the Lubbock community and state of Texas, and both also served their country in the U.S. armed forces.

After working with Texas State Representative Al Edwards for many years, Eddie Richardson was appointed by the governor as a commissioner on Texas' Juneteenth Cultural and Historical Commission. T.J. Patterson's career in education included teaching in Lubbock and serving as Assistant Dean at the Texas Tech College of Business. He was also a leader in local government, becoming the first African American elected to the Lubbock City Council in 1984. He was named Mayor Pro-Tem in 1990 and stepped down from the Lubbock City Council in 2004.

Under the leadership of Eddie Richardson and T.J. Patterson, the Southwest Digest has made many notable contributions to the Lubbock area. Some of these include participating in 85 marches against gangs, drugs and violence over the years. In 2002, the editors established the Southwest Digest Foundation to help support disadvantaged young people. Through the years, the Southwest Digest has continued to spread the message that drugs and crime should not be tolerated in the Lubbock community.

This newspaper has had a positive impact on Lubbock for the past 30 years. I congratulate the editors on their work and wish the Southwest Digest continued success for many years to come.