Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bridge is in my congressional district. I have been living and breathing this issue for the last 16 years.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to build a bridge. This is a bipartisan bill. It passed the Senate under unanimous consent. This legislation before us today merely exempts this river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It exempts this bridge so that the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota can move forward on this vital infrastructure project.

This is what we have today, Mr. Speaker. It's an 82-year-old lift bridge that's on its last life. Last summer the drawbridge was up for 10 days, prohibiting traffic from crossing because of high water. Every summer, every time a boat travels underneath this bridge, the lift bridge is lifted and we have a traffic jam miles long waiting for the bridge to open up again.

Those cars and trucks are spewing fumes, dropping oil. It is a major environmental problem, not to mention the safety concern that we have with this old lift bridge. It's on its final legs, and there's consensus that we have to build a new bridge.

This is what's recommended by the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

This is what the new bridge would look like. Yes, you will see right next to it is a coal-burning power plant on this so-called part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. There is very little wild or scenic at this location, and that's exactly why it's being sited along this location, along with two major manufacturing plants.

This is another view of the bridge in relationship to the power plant just south of the Stillwater area, and this is actually the view from downtown Stillwater looking south along the river at this bridge. You can barely see it because of how it's designed to blend into the atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, about 6 years ago I formed a process called ``resolve'' to get all the stakeholders at the table so that they could discuss and scrub every option and every alternative that was available. At the end of that 5-year negotiating process, 26 of the 27 stakeholders reached an agreement on what needed to be done.

The only holdout was the Sierra Club, and that's why we're having this big debate this evening. Even their proposal that came in at the eleventh hour would cost just as much, it would take another 10 years to build, and it would actually cut into the bluff on the Minnesota side, causing more environmental damage.

Even the local and regional offices of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service had signed off on this bridge project.

I believe, as do most of the members of the Wisconsin and Minnesota delegation, as well as all four of the U.S. senators, that it's time to build this bridge. Both governors in Wisconsin and Minnesota want to build this bridge. The Departments of Transportation in both Wisconsin and Minnesota want to build this bridge. Ninety-two percent of the residents in Wisconsin want to see this bridge go forward. Eighty-eight percent of the residents in Minnesota in Representative Bachmann's district, where the bridge is also built, wants this bridge to go forward. It is time to build this bridge.

Every option, every alternative has been considered. This is where we keep coming back to time and time again. They looked at the cost. They looked at the design. They looked at the location. They looked at the environmental impact. They looked at the mitigation that can be done, and 26 of the 27 stakeholders reached this conclusion. It's unfortunate that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is being used to bludgeon a major infrastructure project that will create jobs in this region when we need them the most, not only the short-term jobs in building this bridge but the long-term economic development and the explosion of economic growth and job creation that will result from the creation of this bridge.

Heading south, as my colleague from Minnesota had suggested, to hook up to the interstate highway, was not a viable option. Yet the town of Hudson that lies in between----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Going south to hook up to the interstate bridge down there is not a viable option. That too is under study for expansion, given the increased traffic load that's going through it today. What this bridge that's being proposed considers is not only current traffic flow projections, but future traffic flow projections over the next 20 or 30 years.

I know infrastructure projects can be difficult. I know they can be contentious. But when so many people at the Federal, State, and local level of the agencies, as well as private entities, have been at the table for 5 years negotiating and trying to reach agreement on what bridge is necessary, when they do finally reach an agreement, that tells me it's time to build a bridge.

I want to thank the ranking member and the chair of the Transportation Committee for your support, as well as the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member on the subcommittee for your support.

Transportation Secretary LaHood has been strongly in favor of moving this project forward. And I also want to thank the administrations, the Governors of both Wisconsin and Minnesota, for their interest and support for this project. One of the reasons it is being brought up at this time is because Governor Dayton from Minnesota says life is short and they need predictability and certainty on what projects are moving forward. He has been a strong advocate of this bridge, but we can't be delaying this and dragging this out for another 16 years, which is the likely outcome if the opposition figures out a way to bring this bill down. Enough is enough.

We have explored this. We have exhausted it, and we keep coming back to the same place as before--this bridge, which makes this legislation necessary, and I encourage my colleagues to support it so we all can move on with our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Colonel David E. Chesser, whose tenure as Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, concludes February 29, 2012. Colonel Chesser assumed his duties as Garrison Commander on April 3, 2008.

Colonel Chesser's 30 years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army is noteworthy in every respect. He is a graduate of the Infantry Officer Basic Course, U.S. Army Airborne School, Engineer Officer Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Command and General Staff Officer Course, the Army Management Staff College Sustaining Base Leadership & Management Course, and the Army War College.

Colonel Chesser has committed his life to serving our country and has received many deserving awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal with seven Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Order of the de Fleury Medal, the Presidents Hundred Tab, the Distinguished Rifleman Badge, the Combat Action Badge, and the Meritorious Unit Citation, as well as various campaign and service medals.

Under Colonel Chesser's outstanding leadership, Fort McCoy became one of the most capable and desirable Reserve Component training installations in the Army, providing stellar base operations support to over 120,000 Soldiers annually. During his tenure, Colonel Chesser launched and led one of the most dramatic community transformations in the installation's history, propelling Fort McCoy to win the FY09 Army Communities of Excellence competition and again in FY10; a direct reflection of his leadership, strategic planning and thinking. He took an installation that had one of the most difficult records for food service and within one year improved it through sound management and leadership technique which led to the Garrison's Connelly Food Service Awards in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Fort McCoy was also recognized as one of the Army's best in maintenance of military equipment, having won the Army Maintenance of Excellence Award in 2009 and achieving first runner-up in 2010. Colonel Chesser transformed an underperforming mobilization training center into one recognized as one of the Army's best and most effective of the seven active Army Power Projection Platforms.

It has been an honor for me to serve as U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's Third Congressional District during Colonel Chesser's tenure at Fort McCoy. I know Colonel Chesser's leadership will be greatly missed at the base and surrounding communities, but I am thankful for his leadership and contributions to ensuring that Fort McCoy remains a shining star in the nation's military training infrastructure.

On behalf of my constituents in Wisconsin and a grateful nation, I would like to thank and commend Colonel David Chesser for his years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army and in particular as Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy.

I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the resolution. I do so because I believed at the time when the CLASS Act was inserted in the Affordable Care Act it wasn't a sustainable program. And sure enough, when Secretary Sebelius and those at the Department of Health and Human Services had a chance to analyze it and try to implement it, they reached the same conclusion.

I just hope that today my Republican colleagues don't take too much glee or delight over the fact that this resolution will pass and it repeals yet another small section of the Affordable Care Act, because just by repealing it without replacing it doesn't solve the problem with the rising long-term health care costs that our Nation faces.

I know my friend Dr. Boustany shares his interest in trying to find a fix to this situation, and I hope that the parties are able to come together and address one of the paramount challenges that we're still facing in health care: How do you incent young, healthy people to invest in their long-term health care needs? It's difficult to do.

And I appreciate the work by those who supported CLASS, recognizing the challenge that we faced and trying to come up with a solution. This just wasn't the answer.

And to my Democratic colleagues, I never believed that passage of the Affordable Care Act--which I did support--was the end-all, be-all for health care reform. In fact, the great potential of the Affordable Care Act was the vast experimentation that needs to take place in reforming the health care delivery system and the payment system to learn what's working and what isn't working and then drive the system to greater efficiency, better quality outcomes, and a better bang for our buck. That, to me, is what health care reform is going to look like in the years to come. It's going to be an ongoing effort trying to determine what is working and what isn't. The CLASS Act, clearly, the way it was structured, was something that wasn't going to work.

So I agree with the resolution today that we should repeal it. It's the same conclusion the administration, having a chance to look at it, reached themselves. But it doesn't leave us off the hook of trying to find a solution to one of the great challenges of long-term health care in this country.

So I would encourage my Republican colleagues--and I know many of them share this sentiment, that this does not end the work that has to go on. We've got to figure out a way to start talking to each other, listening, trusting each other to come up with some solutions. This isn't that solution today.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my vote on the House floor during the vote on H.R. 3117 and H.R. 1141 on January 23, 2012 because of family commitments in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both H.R. 3117 (Roll No. 5) and H.R. 1141 (Roll No. 6).

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 822. Not only am I a proud cosponsor of this legislation but I am also a firm and committed supporter of Second Amendment rights. This legislation will ensure further protection of this vital right by allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

On November 1st of this year, Wisconsin became the 49th state to implement a concealed carry law. The first day the law went into effect, the Wisconsin State Department of Justice website had 400,000 hits and residents had downloaded 83,000 applications. It is clear that Wisconsinites were eager to take advantage of this new law. Given the strong interest this law has garnered in my state and in other states throughout the country, I believe that it is only logical to extend this right across state lines.

The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also allows concealed carry. In all actuality, with all but one state allowing concealed carry, this legislation doesn't break that much new ground. In fact, for the majority of states that have had concealed carry laws on the books for some time now; they have been recognizing permits from other states for years. As can be the case, the state by state approach has caused confusion. This legislation will eliminate any uncertainty by putting in place simple and concise federal policy.

This is a widely supported bill with 245 bipartisan House cosponsors. Given the strong support here in Congress and the increased interest in states throughout the country, it is my hope that the Senate will follow our lead and pass this legislation. It would be a great victory to have this become law this year.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my vote on the House floor for the McCarthy of New York Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 822 on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. I was in a meeting with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and others discussing how to move forward with the St. Croix River Crossing Project, a transportation project of critical importance to western Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted against the McCarthy Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 822 (Roll No. 844).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, does the majority side have an extra minute that they could spare?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this Congress needs rules, it needs rules in budgeting. But I can't help but believe today that the easier and more practical response to the huge budget deficits that we face is going back to a tried and true method called pay-as-you-go budgeting rules.

Pay-as-you-go budgeting was a simple concept--you've got revenue reduction, spending increase, you've got to find an offset in the budget to pay for it. It was a rule that was in place in the 1990s that led to 4 years of budget surpluses. We were actually paying down the national debt rather than adding to it.

Unfortunately, when President Bush took office, along with the Republican majority in Congress they immediately repealed pay-as-you-go budgeting rules which enabled them to support two wars that went unpaid for. They had two tax cuts that went unpaid for that primarily benefited the most wealthy in this country, and you may recall that the main justification for those tax cuts was their fear that we were going to pay down the national debt too fast. It was laughable then as it is laughable today. And then they supported the largest increase in entitlement spending since Medicare was created in 1965 with a new prescription

drug bill that was not paid for. And these are ongoing financial obligations right now, adding to the fiscal woes that we're trying to climb out of as a Nation.

But I know that the majority today does not embrace pay-as-you-go budgeting, even though it worked in the 1990s, even though it helped create 27 million private sector jobs during that period and left an era of budget surpluses. So the next best thing we have to instill some fiscal discipline in this place is through a balanced budget amendment, going through that laborious process of trying to find two-thirds in the House and the Senate and then three-quarters of the States to embrace it. And if that's what it takes to get our fiscal house in order, to check against unbridled tax cuts that aren't paid for, or new increase in spending that goes unpaid for, then it's a risk worth taking because we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation, our children's future with these ongoing budget deficits, and steps need to be taken right now.

There is a legitimate concern, however, that Members on my side of the aisle have been expressing--the three-fifths vote in order to increase the debt ceiling. We saw how perilously close we came to defaulting on our Nation's obligations over the summer. And I fear that through this amendment a minority in this body could literally hold the rest of our Nation hostage or paralyze the functioning of our government or lead to the default on our obligations. I still think that's a legitimate concern that's not addressed through this amendment. In fact, it makes that probability more likely, and it's something that we're going to have to address as we move forward.

But today, I think, given the lack of options that we face and the dire situation that we have with the budget deficits and the lack of progress, unfortunately, with the supercommittee that we've seen over the last couple of months, that the balanced budget amendment seems like the most practical approach given the political realities.

I urge and encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 2, the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is now the only check on the last decade Republican fiscal mismanagement. It is a practical solution to the last decade of Republican irresponsible spending. Of course, the easier response than going through the process of amending the U.S. Constitution is reinstituting pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, which I fully support. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues do not.

Pay-as-you-go budgeting led our country into the healthy economic dynamic we saw in the 1990's under President Clinton. It, too, forced us to make tough decisions about our spending, but led to four years of budget surpluses, 27 million private sector jobs, and excess payments on our national debt. Unfortunately, the Republicans squandered all of that away as they recklessly cast aside fiscal discipline to enter two wars, enact two large tax cuts, and increase entitlement spending, all of which were not paid for. And all of which transformed our country from one with a budget surplus to one with a $1.5 trillion budget deficit in just eight short years.

I share my colleagues' concerns about the requirement for a supermajority to raise the debt ceiling in light of the irresponsible actions of House Republicans earlier this year when they nearly forced the U.S. Government into default.

We must act with fiscal responsibility and attention to long-term deficit reduction. And time is of the essence for the sake of economic growth and job creation--now and for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 674, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act.

The Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act repeals a burdensome tax law that President Bush and Congressional Republicans passed in 2006. Fortunately, the law has never gone into effect because Democrats have fought it for years, and the Senate was successful in voting to repeal it last week. Estimates project that the tax actually costs more to implement than it raises in new revenue. Thus, it only hurts our local businesses, especially in an underperforming economy, by restricting cash flow and causing administrative headaches. Eliminating such a barrier will allow our businesses to better use their assets to grow and hire, which is exactly what our economy needs right now.

Currently, many contractors and small businesses are strapped for cash and doing everything they can to keep their doors open. In addition to repealing a burdensome tax, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act also provides incentives to grow our stagnant economy by helping businesses all over the country hire unemployed veterans. Because veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are facing 12.1 percent unemployment, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act contains critical veterans' jobs initiatives that will not only incentivize hiring, but will spur economic growth by putting veterans back to work and investing in small businesses that are struggling in this stagnant economy.

In a fiscally responsible way, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act provides meaningful tax incentives to hire 45,000 unemployed veterans in 2012 and 54,000 each in 2013 and 2014. It not only helps veterans who have been unemployed for more than six months, but also those who have been unemployed for over four weeks. Businesses are further incentivized to hire veterans returning to the workforce with service-connected disabilities after six months of looking for a job.

In addition to providing incentives to hire veterans, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act provides transition assistance through a mandatory program for servicemembers returning to civilian life. Such a vital program will assist returning servicemembers in securing 21st Century jobs through career counseling and resume-writing workshops.

By helping our veterans transition back to civilian life and by creating opportunities for them to obtain meaningful employment, we show our thanks for their selfless service to our country. Furthermore, we instill faith in our local businesses to grow and hire by providing them support and resources to get through this tough economic time.

This bill is one small but important step in upholding our commitment to support the troops that have proudly defended our Nation. I'm proud to support this legislation for our veterans and our small businesses and government contractors.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the gentleman from Michigan's allotment of time.

I rise in strong support of the three trade agreements before us today: the Colombia agreement, Panama, as well as South Korea. Let me explain why.

For too long, I feel the United States has been standing on the sidelines while other countries have been moving on without us in opening up market share and establishing bilateral/multilateral agreements with them.

In the specific case of Colombia, because of our inability to be able to come together and pass a trade agreement, in the last year alone we've lost close to 50 percent market share with agricultural products that we would normally be exporting in the Colombian market. Being from the State of Wisconsin, obviously the agriculture sector is immensely important; and the longer we delay in passing these measures, the more we're going to be precluded from the market.

Also Mr. Speaker, I rise and share the concern of so many of my colleagues today in regard to labor rights in Colombia, but I think the Colombia of today is not the Colombia of 10 years ago or even of 5 years ago.

And much to the credit of the ranking member on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin, who worked tirelessly to make sure that we had a Labor Action Plan to work with Colombia to improve labor rights and protections, he thinks it should be a part of the body of the agreement. I think it's being implemented as we speak now, and it's not necessary, but the Santos administration realizes it's in their best interest to do more to enhance labor rights and protections in Colombia. I think a large part of the credit deserves to be given to the gentleman seated next to me here today, Mr. Levin.

We're just 4 percent of the world's population. Of course we've got to have a proactive trade agenda. The question is whether we're going to be a member of a rules-based trading system or not, because we are going to be trading with these countries one way or the other. These trade agreements now have core international labor and environmental standards in the bulk of the agreement, fully enforceable with every other provision.

That is an attempt to elevate standards upwards rather than seeing this race to the bottom that so many of my colleagues are concerned about. That's the question I think that's before us today involving Colombia, Panama, and the larger market, South Korea, is whether we're going to move forward on trade agreements that have been much improved with the current administration, having inherited from the last, or whether we will continue to move forward without any rules with those countries. They already have virtual unlimited access to our market but we face restrictions to theirs. These trade agreements will fix that.

I would urge my colleagues to support all three trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Panama trade agreement, as well as the Colombia and South Korea agreements before us today. And in the matter of Panama, to Panama's credit and to Panama's Parliament's credit, they realize that in order for this trade agreement to be fully considered by the Congress, they had to make improvements in regards to the tax havens of their country. And as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee pointed out, they did that. They took that additional step removing them from the ``Gray List'' of tax havens internationally.

But that brings me to the larger point. When President Obama took office, I believe he inherited three pretty good trade agreements at his desk negotiated by the previous administration; but he knew that they could be improved upon, which they immediately set out to do. And to the credit of many members of the Ways and Means Committee, especially the chairman and the ranking member both from Michigan, and the tireless efforts they put into improving these trade agreements, we finally reached the point where we could get back in the game.

At just 4 percent of the world's population, we have to be engaged with a proactive trade agenda; but the last time we had a trade agreement before this Congress has been roughly 6 years ago while other nations have been moving on with bilateral and multilateral agreements. That's too long when we have a floundering economy. Not that these trade agreements are going to be the panacea to rapid and significant job growth, but they will be helpful. In fact, countries like Panama and Colombia have virtually duty-free access to our country's markets already.

So the question is whether or not we want to try to level the playing field for our workers, for our businesses, and for the jobs being created here in the United States. And in the specific case of Panama, tariff reductions will be significant that will lead to further job growth in both the manufacturing, the service and the agricultural sectors alone.

But I commend the Obama administration and the team at the USTR led by Ambassador Kirk with the work they did in improving this Panama trade agreement, along with Colombia and South Korea, putting them in a position where there can be bipartisan support, and more importantly, to get us back into the arena of active trade which will help create jobs here at home.

I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement today as I have in support of Colombia and Panama as well.

Madam Speaker, the Korea trade agreement is another example of President Obama and his team at USTR, led by Ambassador Kirk, inheriting what I thought were three pretty good trade agreements when they assumed office, but realizing there was room for improvement, and much to the credit of the chairman and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, we got that crucial improvement with Korea over two vital sectors of the U.S. economy--automobiles and beef.

More specifically for the State of Wisconsin, which is the largest cranberry-producing State in the Nation, this enables us to get back into the game with meaningful exports going into the Korean market. Each day we wait to pass this agreement, Chile captures more market share, affecting the ability to export and the job creation that we desperately need back home.

It's also true for one of the largest manufacturers and, therefore, one of the largest employers in my district in western Wisconsin, located in my hometown of La Crosse. Right now, the goods and products that they're making at that La Crosse plant face an 8 percent tariff barrier to the export into the Korean market. With the passage of this agreement, that tariff goes down to zero, which is the point of all of these trade agreements, that we're leveling the playing field for our workers and our businesses so they can compete more effectively and fairly in gaining greater market access to Korea, to Colombia, and to Panama.

These won't be the panaceas to the job creation we need at home, but they are important steps in the right direction. They all contain vital international labor and environmental standards in the bulk of the agreements, fully enforceable with all other provisions. That has been a significant improvement as far as the elevation of standards globally and the leveling of the playing field for our businesses and our workers at home, which cannot be discounted.

Again, I commend the members of the Ways and Means Committee, the leadership there, and especially President Obama and his USTR team in taking these three trade agreements, improving upon them, and making sure that the ``open for business'' sign is over the United States of America again so we can pursue a meaningful economic engagement throughout the rest of the world.

I do subscribe to Cordell Hull's theory on trade. He once stated that trade is more than just goods and products crossing borders because, when that occurs, armies don't.

These are an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal and also part of the answer to the economic growth that we need desperately in this country.

I thank my good friend and colleague from the committee for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, many of us have been rising throughout the course of the debate today talking about the merits of the three pending trade agreements before us and why it's important for us to move forward on them, the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, greater market access to the goods, product services that are being made right here in America, a system of rules that all countries have to abide by that are parties to this agreement, according to international labor and environmental standards included in the body of the agreement, fully enforceable with any other provision, protection of intellectual property rights, and on and on and on. That's why I'm supportive of the three bilateral agreements before us.

But to be honest with the American people, and as long as trade remains a two-way street, there will be adverse impacts of trade on companies and workers here in America. When that occurs, then the workers of that business should not just be left on their own.

That's why the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance is important today, to move forward hand-in-hand with those trade agreements so those workers will have an opportunity to upgrade their skills, to go to school, to have a better match in the job market and find placement as quickly as possible. Since 1962, the TAA program has assisted those workers who lost their position as a result of international trade, helped them retrain and acquire skills needed for them to be more competitive in the global marketplace.

In Wisconsin alone in 2010, we had an estimated 10,359 workers who were covered by this program, and my State's not alone. In fact, the three largest TAA State recipients were Michigan, Ohio, California.

In 2010 in Wisconsin, 52 percent of the TAA participants were successfully employed within 3 months of leaving the program, and 88 percent of those participants continued that employment over the next few quarters. The benefit of this program not only helps workers in my State, but also those specifically in western Wisconsin that I represent.

In 2010, again, when Chart Energy & Chemicals in La Crosse moved some of its production line to China, approximately 230 employees were laid off, but they were able to receive reemployment and training services under the Federal TAA program. When Northern Engraving Corporation shut down its Luxco division tool shop in La Crosse, 27 workers were laid off; and they too qualified for assistance so that they could get reintegrated in the regional economy.

There are many more examples of that throughout Wisconsin and, I am sure, throughout the country. And that's why it was a bit discouraging that it took so long for us to reach an agreement on TAA reauthorization when there's wide bipartisan support and great support on the outside, from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO, saying this is the right and decent thing to do for America's workers if we are going to move forward in a proactive trade agenda.

I want to take a moment and commend my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, for the work that he did with Senator Baucus in order to get the TAA reauthorization in the place that it is today. I think it was very helpful.

I thank my friend.

As I mentioned in committee last week during the markup, I think it would make sense if the committee, Ways and Means that had jurisdiction, were to hold some hearings as we move forward on ways that we can improve the efficiency and the outcome of the TAA program. Any program is worthy of change and improvements. I think this is right for that.

My concern is this is only a 3-year reauthorization. I hope we can continue bipartisan support that continues beyond 3 years so it's not having to be linked to other trade agreements, but I think our committee has some work to do to improve a very successful program.

I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement, but this is a lousy way to run our great country or to rebuild a world-class economy. I support it because the alternative is unacceptable, defaulting on our Nation's obligations for the first time in our Nation's history. Doing so would be the greatest unforced error ever committed in the history of our country. And it's all political.

The performance of this Congress the last couple of months has a lot to be desired. And if King Solomon were alive today, I think his metaphorical solution to all this would be to kill both women and spare the child. But if we are to achieve true fiscal solvency for our country, there are three things I think that need to happen:

We need to invest in our future, grow the economy. You do that by investing in education and job training and scientific research. And the infrastructure upgrade our Nation needs in broadband expansion, that's not happening right now, and it won't, I fear, under this agreement.

We need to also look for smart savings in the budget, starting with changing the way we pay for health care in this country so it's based on the value and no longer the volume of care that's given. By getting rid of outdated weapons programs the Pentagon keeps telling Congress to stop appropriating money for, because they're not asking for it, and they don't need it. It's ending taxpayer subsidies going to large agribusiness with mailing addresses in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, not even to working families.

And finally, we need tax reform, to simplify a code that has acted like an anchor on economic growth and job creation, but that is fair, asking the most wealthy to contribute their fair share as well.

I support the agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, and very active in that organization, I rise in support of the Dicks amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.

It is unfortunate that Ranking Member Dicks has to offer an amendment in order to strip out a policy rider of this magnitude in an appropriation bill. We just had a short discussion about how this would be more appropriate in the authorizing committee for a further vetting of this issue. And I think there are some legitimate issues that we need to get into, but not in the appropriation bill. This is one of many policy riders that have been jammed into this appropriation bill, from the assault on the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to allowing mining near the Grand Canyon, one of the great natural treasures we have as a Nation, and on and on and on. And this extension rider that was included in the base bill would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from spending money, any money, on the listing of new animals or plants under the Endangered Species Act.

So to claim that this doesn't directly affect and attack the Endangered Species Act tonight is mind-boggling to me.

And yet in my home district in western Wisconsin, a very beautiful national wildlife refuge, the Necedah Wildlife Refuge, with three endangered species located there--from the gray wolf to the cardinal blue butterfly to the whooping crane--because of the protection that they have had, they are now increasing in population. The wolf to the extent that they are on the verge of being delisted in Wisconsin, another success story. And the whooping crane is making a resurgence, all because of the protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act.

And now to claim in this bill that we are going to prevent additional funding in order to locate those species, whether animal or plant or fish, from falling under the protection, this is not the appropriate vehicle. But there is even more in this legislation that's disconcerting. The deep cuts to long-standing conservation, the Land and Water Conservation Program that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, is deeply disturbing--an 80 percent proposed cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

And I'm glad that the committee earlier this night adopted the Bass amendment to at least restore $20 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But why are we cutting anything from that vital program? This isn't even funded by the taxpayers.

This comes from oil royalties from a grand bargain that we struck with oil and gas companies so they can explore and extract these natural resources from our public lands. They agreed that for the right of doing that, they would contribute to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, funds that would be used then for the enhancement of conservation programs and the protection and preservation of public lands in this country. And to come with a bill now to cut 80 percent of that out of oil royalties does not make sense. Or, the 7.5 percent under the Wildlife Refuge System.

I know Chairman Dicks has been a champion of the refuge system for many years. It's a system that affects virtually every congressional district. It brings countless revenue into our districts, plus jobs. And with the huge backlog of maintenance and operation, another 7.5 percent cut will put them in the hole.

A $7 million cut from the National Park System budget, a 21 percent cut in the Fish and Wildlife Service, a 64 percent cut in the State Wildlife Grants Program, yet back home some of the greatest conversationists that I know are my hunting and fishing buddies, because they get it. They understand if we just go and use the resources and deplete it, from the wildlife to the fish to the waterfowl, that there's not going to be that recreational enjoyment that so many of us get in the outdoor recreation community.

That's why it was no surprise that earlier this month over 640 outdoor recreation entities and preservation entities signed a letter to the chairman and the leadership and to everyone in our office decrying the spending cuts in these programs that we have before us this evening, because they know that these programs aren't something you can just turn off like a spigot. These programs require the continuity of funding and the continuity of assistance in order to make the progress that's necessary.

And so these draconian cuts that are being proposed right now are going to set back the cause of conservation, whether it's wildlife or land in the country, for many, many years, and that's unfortunate. Because these same people also understand the economic impact that these programs have.

Outdoor recreation contributes over $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy. It supports over 6\1/2\ million jobs. One out of every 20 private sector jobs are affiliated with outdoor recreational opportunity, 8 percent of consumer spending. In my own State of Wisconsin, hunting and fishing alone supports over 57,000 jobs and $400 million in State revenue.

So if we're really serious about addressing the soft economy we have now and doing what we can to get the economy on track, creating good- paying jobs, this is the wrong place we should be looking in the budget for drastic cutbacks.

I've been one of the leaders in this place for significant farm bill reform to get at the outdated agriculture subsidies.

For years, I have been leading the effort for farm bill reform to end these taxpayer subsidies going to a few but large agribusinesses that distort the market, distort trade policies. It's not helping our family farmers. Finally discussion is starting to take place seriously to actually scrub those programs. Yet when I've led this cause in the past, I remember not too long ago a Member in this body accused me of being the Osama bin Laden of agriculture policy. Yet today, if we had taken actions 10 years ago when many of us were acting on it, maybe we wouldn't be finding ourselves in this huge fiscal hole that we have today.

So not only the policy riders but the spending cuts that are being proposed are the wrong direction for our Nation to go. It will jeopardize these vital programs--programs, again, that have enjoyed wide bipartisan support. We ought not be balancing the budget on their backs.

Over the last 30 years, funding for conservation programs has gone from 1.7 percent of Federal funding to less than .6 percent. They get it at the altar of fiscal responsibility. We can't go any deeper.

I encourage Members to support the Dicks amendment and oppose the underlying bill. We have to do a better job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs and leaders of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the largest, bipartisan, bicameral caucus in this Congress, I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill falls short on so many different levels-- especially our responsibility to future generations to be good stewards of the public lands, the vital natural resources, and the wildlife that we have within our borders.

But don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. We have had a tradition in this place for many years of having strong, bipartisan support for reasonable, sensible, land and water conservation programs. That's why earlier this month, a coalition of over 640 outdoor recreation entities sent a letter to each of our offices, including the Congressional leadership, expressing their deep concern and dismay over the funding cuts proposed in this appropriation bill.

This letter was signed by entities such as the Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Wild Turkey Foundation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, and it was also signed by the president of The Wilderness Society, Bill Meadows, and a board member of the Civil War Trust, John Nau. I would like to read that letter at this time.

``We are a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of interest united behind a shared belief that natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, and investments in them, are vital to the future of our great Nation.

``Like you, we are concerned about our Nation's fiscal health. The Nation faces unsustainable future fiscal deficits, which must be addressed. As part of the overall solution to our deficit challenges, we know that conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs will not and should not be exempted from scrutiny. We are willing to engage in a process to find further savings in spending and review the economic and budgetary benefits of critical conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation programs.

``The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor recreation, and preservation. Doing so will impose on the future generations whose well-being depends on the conservation and preservation of our common natural and historic resources.

``As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care about natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation, we stand ready to work with you on serious efforts to address our Nation's economic and fiscal challenges, as they relate to investments in, and tough choices about, the programs we care about. We urge this Congress to address the Federal deficit while still investing in critical conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs in 2012.''

Mr. Chairman, these groups realize, as many of us realize too, this is more than just being good stewards of the land and doing right by future generations. Investment in these vital programs is crucial for economic development and job creation in this country. The Outdoor Industry Foundation has issued a survey from year to year showing the economic impact of many of these conservation programs on outdoor recreation activities. They found that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 6\1/2\ million private sector jobs, one out of every 20 jobs, and stimulates 8 percent of consumer spending.

In Wisconsin, my home State, hunting and fishing alone supports 57,000 jobs, and $400 million in State revenue. Sportsmen spend $3.1 billion annually, which helps stimulate the Wisconsin economy and other States.

Mr. Chairman, the irony in all this is that these organizations and these programs have been giving at the idol of deficit reduction for some time. In fact, over the last 30 years, American investment in parks, wildlife, clean water, and clean air has fallen from 1.7 percent of overall Federal budget to less than 0.6 percent. So throughout the years, there has been a continual reduction in funding for these programs. The irony is that for many of these programs, for every public dollar used, it is leveraged to draw in more private sector dollars. This too will be in great jeopardy with the dismantling of these programs. These aren't programs you can just turn on and off with a spigot. You need a continuity of care to keep them going. With funding reductions of this magnitude, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that continuity of care. Whether it is to clean water, clean air, to wildlife preservation and enhancement, all of these programs are under a direct assault with this Interior appropriations bill.

With the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an 80 percent proposed cut, the irony with this program is that it is funded by oil royalties. It has been a grand bargain that has been used in the past to allow development of oil on public lands.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill. We can do better than this. We have to do better.

July 6, 2011.

Hon. Harry M. Reid,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner: We are a

broad coalition of organizations representing millions of

members with very diverse political backgrounds and areas of

interest united behind a shared belief that natural resource

conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic preservation,

and investments in them, are vital to the future of our great

nation.

Like you, we are concerned about our nation's fiscal

health. The nation faces unsustainable future fiscal

deficits, which must be addressed. As part of the overall

solution to our deficit challenges, we know that

conservation, recreation, and historic preservation programs

will not and should not be exempt from scrutiny. We are

willing to engage in a process to find further savings in

spending, and review the economic and budgetary benefits of

critical conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic

preservation programs.

The Federal budget cannot and should not be balanced

disproportionately on the backs of conservation, outdoor

recreation and preservation. Doing so will impose on the

future generations whose well-being depends on the

conservation and preservation of our common natural and

historic resources.

As a diverse community of taxpayers and voters who care

about natural resource conservation, outdoor recreation, and

historic preservation, we stand ready to work with you on

serious efforts to address our nation's economic and fiscal

challenges, as they relate to investments in, and tough

choices about, the programs we care about. We urge

this Congress to address the federal deficit while still

investing in critical conservation, recreation and historic

preservation programs in 2012.

Please see attached for list of signers as of 7/6/11.

Thank you.

Bill Meadows,

President, The Wilderness Society.

John Nau,

Board Member, Civil War Trust.