Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, because the process failed to live up to the Majority's promise of regular order, didn't invest in Americans back home, and included controversial policy riders that have no place in appropriations bills. Rather than investing in Americans by fully funding critical domestic programs, this bill overspends on wasteful programs under the guise of national security. Further, it included controversial policy riders, which should be considered under their own merit-not hidden in a spending bill.

I am particularly concerned about the additional money in the bill that is allocated for new weapons systems that may actually threaten our national security. In particular, the bill included new funding for nuclear weapons activities at the expense of critical defense nonproliferation accounts, while offering little evidence as to how new nuclear weapons could be used to improve national security.

Despite voting against the bill, I am happy to see over $52 million provided to the VA to implement the Jason Simcakoski PROMISE Act. The funding will assist in increasing programs to help medical professionals and patients understand the risks associated with pain medication and examine alternative treatments. I am also encouraged that the bill included over $196 million for veteran suicide prevention, $5.6 billion for homeless veterans' treatment costs, and $270 million for rural health initiatives. These efforts will help address the opioid epidemic and give veterans and their families the tools they need and the accountability they deserve

I understand how important it is to provide ample support for our military, which is why I recently voted in favor the National Defense Authorization Act. Supporting the brave men and women who defend this nation is of paramount importance; however, we should not be inserting partisan riders into our spending bills. I will continue to work with my colleagues to support our military and pursue fiscally responsible policies that invest in Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to commemorate the opening of the Great River Road Interpretive Center at the Genoa National Fish Hatchery. This Interpretive Center is along the Great River Road in Wisconsin and is one of our nation's most historic and extensive scenic byways. It is also part of the National Scenic Byways Program.

Today the Great River Road offers travelers not just a leisurely scenic drive but a unique and lasting journey through diverse communities and landscapes. At the Great River Road Interpretative Center in Genoa, visitors will have a chance to see Mississippi River fish species, birds native to the region and a history of the area's pearl button industry.

From its shores in Genoa, the new Interpretive Center provides a panoramic view of the majesty and magnitude of the Mississippi River. Standing outside its entrance doors, one recognizes the River's size, scale, and multiple uses. From outdoor recreation to commercial navigation, to serving as a primary corridor for North American waterfowl, the Mississippi River plays an essential role in the lives of the people of this region and nation. However, in addition to its recreational, navigation and wildlife use, the area and its landscape also tell an important part of our nation's history. It was here, near the new Interpretive Center that a significant battle ofthe Black Hawk War was fought. The new center features a description of this event with an exhibit dedicated to the Battle at Bad Axe. As a result, residents and tourist alike will better understand the story and history of the area and the role that the Mississippi River played in the region's development.

The Great River Road Interpretive Center is dedicated to protecting and honoring the Mississippi River as both a precious natural resource and an economic engine. Residents and visitors alike will benefit from the wealth of historical, cultural and ecological information that will be featured in this new facility here in Genoa.

The Great River Road Interpretive Center will serve as a gateway to the rich heritage of the Mississippi River for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill because it is a missed opportunity. I had offered numerous, fiscally responsible reform amendments to improve the bill, all of which were rejected last night.

For instance, why is a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of over $500,000 a year still receiving taxpayer subsidies under this bill? Why can't we at least track the crop insurance premium subsidy payments to the individual entities?

Right now, that is currently prohibited under the bill. That is not right. The American taxpayer deserves to see how their tax dollars are being run.

Why are we eliminating the entire Conservation Stewardship Program when three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance today are denied because of inadequacy of funds?

This farm bill should be about helping our family farmers succeed, not a sop to powerful special interests here in Washington. That is why this is a missed opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I thank her for her leadership on this issue.

This amendment is long overdue. The sugar program that currently exists has distorted the marketplace for too long. According to one estimate, it has driven up consumer prices by over $4 billion a year. And it is making it more difficult for us to negotiate greater market access in trade negotiations overseas.

Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed that many of my fiscally responsible reform amendments were rejected late last night in the Rules Committee, such as:

Why do multimillionaires and billionaires still qualify for agriculture subsidies under the current bill?

Why do those earning over $500,000 in adjusted gross income get subsidies under this bill?

Why are multiple people on the same farm receiving the same subsidies under this bill, from husbands to wives, to sons, to daughters, the nephews, the nieces, the cousins?

Why can't we at least track where the crop insurance premium subsidies are going, which is currently prohibited under this bill?

This legislation should be working for family farmers, not powerful special interests here in Washington. I fear it is a missed opportunity.

This amendment at least introduces some modicum of reform, which is long overdue, in a program that has distorted the marketplace for too long.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to accept this amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, even with that introduction, I thank my very good friend and colleague from Colorado for holding this Special Order.

I am honored actually to be on the House floor with so many of my esteemed colleagues, who have taken a back seat to no one when it comes to standing up for our natural resources: for the conservation title, specifically, of this farm bill. And I am looking at the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and the work that she has done on agriculture policy throughout the years, and her service to her district: the introduction of the local Farms Act that she has worked on in a bipartisan fashion. My friend from Oregon, who is one of the foremost thinkers and leaders when it comes to environmental policy, but the impact on our family farms throughout our country.

This is an important moment, because this is one of the more important bills that we have to consider in this session of Congress: the renewal of the farm bill. We have a chance every five or six years to take a look at the program to see what is working, what isn't, and fix what isn't working to make sure that we are empowering our farmers with the tools and resources that they need to be successful.

I come from one of the largest agriculture producing districts in the Nation, in rural western and north-central Wisconsin. It has been tough in farm country in the last few years, given where commodity prices have been, and, yes, where milk prices have been falling for the last 3 years. It is very difficult for these individual entities and family farms to succeed with this very tough market that they are facing right now.

That is why taking our time to get this farm bill done right is the appropriate thing to do. But, unfortunately, the farm bill in its current form misses the mark in so many areas.

There has been a lot of discussion about what is happening under the conservation title, the elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program, which has worked incredibly well, and has been very successful for my family farmers in Wisconsin. I come from a very hilly area with bluffs and coulees: a lot of highly sensitive and erodible land and a lot of water source.

Being able to use a Conservation Stewardship Program that is built in for the flexibility for what my farmers need, and the technical assistance that they need, to put good conservation plans in practice is very important. As the previous speaker highlighted, too, the demand is overwhelming. Three out of every four farmers nationwide applying for conservation funding assistance are currently turned away because of the inadequacy of resources.

By eliminating the Conservation Stewardship Program and rolling it into the EQIP program eliminates $800 million worth of base funding. This comes on the heels of the previous farm bill, where there were $8 billion worth of cuts under the conservation title. We are not stepping up to address the need that exists in farm country; instead, we are rolling it back even further.

But the problems with this farm bill don't just end under the conservation title. Under title I commodity programs, they are lifting the payment limitation caps that had been in existence for some time. Now, pass-through entities will be able to qualify for these subsidy payments.

I think the average viewer, and average taxpayer, would be shocked to see the mailing addresses for these commodity subsidy programs going to New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, ending up on the doorsteps of multi-millionaires and billionaires, who are receiving government subsidies under the commodity program. That is wrong. These people won't even set foot on a family farm. Rolling back any protections that exist under the multiple entity rule, which means that husbands, wives, daughters, sisters, sons, aunts, and uncles can qualify for the same payments, is also wrong.

Finally, there is an opportunity to tighten the crop insurance program. Right now, it is prohibited from even tracking these crop insurance premium subsidies. You can't even track it to the individual.

If there is one thing that this farm bill should demand is complete transparency. The American taxpayer deserves to know where their tax dollars are going, but they can't now under the crop insurance program. That is something else that I am trying to fix with an amendment. We are going to find out later today what amendments are made in order to try to improve this bill. It may be beyond salvage at this point coming out of the House, but we still have time later this year to do the right thing to make sure that this farm bill speaks to the needs of our family farmers back home and not to the powerful special interests here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Colonel David J. Pinter, Sr. whose tenure as Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, concludes May 19, 2018. Colonel Pinter assumed duties as Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy on March 11, 2016.

Colonel Pinter's 29 years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army is noteworthy in every respect. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; a master's degree in Business and Policy Studies from Empire State College, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.; and a master's degree in National Security Strategy from the National War College, Washington, D.C. His military education includes the Combined Arms and Service Staff School, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the National War College.

Colonel Pinter received his Army commission in 1989 from the University of Iowa Reserve Officer Training Corps program. He entered active duty and attended the Army Aviation School for flight training and then was assigned as a Platoon Leader with the 1st Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment in Korea. He next served with the 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y., as a Platoon Leader and Battalion Flight Operations Officer. He then was assigned as Aviation Company Commander and 12th Aviation Brigade Operations Planner with support to V Corps in Germany. Pinter returned to the 10th Mountain Division and began training for certification in the Army Acquisition Corps. He deployed to Kosovo in support of the Joint Contracting Cell and continued his Acquisition career as an Aviation Material Development Branch Chief with the Aviation Combat Development Directorate. His follow-on assignment was as the Project Manager and Operations Officer to the Soldier, Biological, Chemical Command, and he then worked with the Office of the Surgeon General to field Chem-bio Protective Systems to Combat Support Hospitals and Forward Surgical Teams in the Iraq theater prior to and during the onset of the war.

Colonel Pinter entered the Active Guard Reserve program in 2003 with duty at the University of Iowa as the Senior Assistant Military Professor. He then served as the Logistics Officer with the newly formed 11th Aviation Command leading efforts to establish logistical support for the Army Reserve Aviation Operations of 17 units in 14 states, followed by Aviation Battalion Command in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Then, he served as a force management staff member in the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve, as well as in the Office of the Assistants to the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard and Reserve Matters. Immediately prior to his assignment at Fort McCoy, he served as Division Chief for the Homeland Defense Division of the Joint Staff J3 Operations Directorate, Washington, D.C.

Colonel Pinter's deployments include Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. Colonel Pinter has committed his life to serving our country and has received many deserving awards and decorations, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with seven Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with six Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Achievement Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with three Bronze Service Stars, Humanitarian Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, NATO medal with two Bronze Service Stars, United Nations Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, Joint Staff Identification Badge, Army Staff Identification Badge, Airborne Badge, Air Assault Badge, Combat Patch, Senior Aviator Badge, Ranger Tab, and Combat Action Badge.

Under Colonel Pinter's effective leadership, which has fostered the success of ``Team McCoy,'' Fort McCoy has received heightened awareness by senior leaders that have led to an increase in the transit training population, mobilization, medical and mission readiness of the U.S. military. Fort McCoy is one of six major Army Reserve garrisons, within the seventy-five Army installation command garrisons, and under Colonel Pinter's guidance, it is the only one to receive the Army Community of Excellence Award two years in a row. Additionally, during his tenure, Colonel Pinter transitioned Fort McCoy's business model into a four- seasons, cold-weather focused training model. Thanks to Colonel Pinter, Fort McCoy is well positioned for the future.

It has been an honor for me to serve as U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's Third Congressional District during Colonel Pinter's tenure at Fort McCoy. I know Colonel Pinter'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 J. Pinter, Sr. for his years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army and in particular as Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy. I wish him, his wife, and children the very best as they turn the page on the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is truly embarrassing. I don't even think ``Saturday Night Live'' could come up with a skit of this nature.

Here we are today debating a constitutional amendment to balance the budget on the heels of one of the most fiscally reckless tax cuts in this Nation's history, which the Congressional Budget Office just estimated will increase our national debt by over $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Eighty-three percent of the benefit is going to the wealthiest 1 percent. What relief is being delivered to working families disappears in 5 years. This also came on the heels of a 2-year budget that exceeds the current spending caps by over $300 billion.

Now, don't take my word for it. Consider what Republican Senator Bob Corker recently said, who was the deciding vote in the Senate on that tax cut:

``If it ends up costing what has been laid out here, it could well be one of the worst votes I've made.''

``None of us have covered ourselves in glory. This Congress and this administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and Congresses that we've had.'' Republican Senator Bob Corker.

Now, listen, I have supported a balanced budget amendment in the past, but I have done it primarily as a check against reckless Republican spending. As history has shown, it is typically during Republican administrations when budget deficits explode and during Democratic administrations when they come down.

But why are we making this so difficult on ourselves? We don't need a constitutional amendment. We need to get back to budget rules that we know work.

Pay-as-you-go budgeting worked. We had it in place in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, and it led us to 4 years of budget surpluses and we were paying down the national debt. We had pay-as-you- go budgeting in the early years of the Obama administration, when he inherited a $1.5 trillion budget deficit from the previous administration, and by the time President Obama left office, that was reduced by over two-thirds.

We don't need a constitutional amendment. We need political courage. We need budget rules that have shown that they work in the past. That is what we should be discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and to give thanks to a very good friend of mine, our Deputy Chief Reporter of the House of Representatives, Ed Johnson, whose last day for us is this Friday before he returns to our home State of Wisconsin.

Ed began his official court reporting career back in Wisconsin in 1980, hooking up with a judge. He eventually made his way here to the House of Representatives in 2007 and, ultimately, became Deputy Chief Reporter in 2015.

Ed took his role as our guardian of the public record very seriously: with great integrity, with great professionalism, and with great respect from everyone who had a chance to work with him.

And what do these Official Reporters do for us? Like today, this young lady here to my left brings her stenograph machine down to the well of the House or to a committee that they might be assigned, and they record everything that is said. With a single stroke of the key, they are able to record whole words, phrases, sometimes whole sentences if they know what is being said, sometimes when Members are speaking over each other. It is an incredibly difficult talent that they have to learn,

and they all do it so very, very well for us.

Now, some of Ed's highlights during his career here: He was able to report President Obama's State of the Union Address in 2015 by sitting here at the dais.

And listen to this: He served as ``Mr. February'' in the ``2013 Men of Court Reporting'' calendar, which is probably appropriate, given Ed's legendary sense of humor. He has also been known to do some standup comedy.

Having spent time with my good friend, Ed, here in Washington, I have a feeling that he is going to miss a lot of the aspects that he has been privy to Capitol Hill, given his appreciation for our history, politics, policy, the personalities of this place, and we will certainly be missing him.

So I want to wish him and his wife, Liz, and their two dogs, Bucky and Angus--I mean, what could be more Wisconsin than that--as they return home to our home State of Wisconsin where they will be a little bit closer to their families.

I want to thank Ed for his service to this institution, but also to our country and the distinguished career that he had here in Washington.

I wish him and Liz all the best as they return home to Wisconsin where Tawni and I look forward to continuing our friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Court Reporting and Captioning Week and in appreciation of court reporters across the country. Our court reporters play a critical role in our communities--they hold the vital responsibility to record history, assist those who are deaf or hard of hearing, and preserve judicial proceedings. I witnessed the dedication and professionalism of court reporters through my time as a special prosecutor, but more importantly I have seen the tremendous devotion of court reporters through my wife, Tawni, who has been a court reporter in western Wisconsin for over 25 years. Additionally, I want to recognize the outstanding work done by the Official House reporters, who transcribe proceedings verbatim in the Congressional Record and provide needed support for congressional committees.

The National Court Reporters Association and its members have also been instrumental for the success of the Veterans History Project, which was created by legislation I authored. This project is the largest oral history collection in United States history, having collected over 100,000 stories from our nation's veterans that are permanently stored at the Library of Congress and available to the public.

Shortly after the Veterans History Project was launched, court reporters across the country partnered with the Library of Congress to preserve the narratives of our nation's veterans by assisting in transcribing veterans' stories. To date, over 4,000 oral history transcripts have been submitted by court reporters to the Library of Congress. Not only have court reporters worked diligently with the Library of Congress to transcribe stories that had already been submitted, but many have personally interviewed veterans within their own communities. Without this admirable dedication from court reporters throughout the country, we would not be able to preserve many of these veterans' stories or record the sacrifices they made for our nation.

The National Court Reporters Foundation also launched a program called ``The Hard of Hearing Heroes Project,'' where veterans with hearing loss can be interviewed for the Veterans History Project through the use of real time captioning. This is a vital service because hearing loss is among the most common service-connected injury and an estimated 60 percent of veterans from the post 9/11 era who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer some form of hearing loss. The ``Hard of Hearing Heroes Project'' will help ensure every veteran has a chance to share his or her story.

As we celebrate National Court Reporting and Captioning Week, I want to thank the National Court Reporters Association and its many members throughout the country for their contributions to preserving history and for supporting those who are deaf or hard of hearing. I also particularly want to thank court reporters for their commitment to the Veterans History Project and to preserving veterans' stories for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of S. 117 and H.R. 4318.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Thursday, January 11, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of S. 139. While this bill is not perfect, the FISA program is needed to keep the American public safe. I am hopeful that stronger judicial oversight elements will be added in the Senate, as a former special prosecutor, I acutely understand the need for people's privacy rights must be protected at all times.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of S. 140.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Tuesday January 9, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4581, H.R. 4564 and H. Res. 676.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to borrow $2 trillion from China over the next 10 years, it better be for a very good reason. And lavishing huge tax breaks to multinational corporations and to the most wealthy amongst us is not a good reason.

I am very concerned about many of my fiscally conservative friends across the aisle. So I offered an amendment that would have expanded the endangered species list to include fiscally conservative Republicans because they are about to go extinct under this bill.

And under this bill, they are creating a mess that is going to take years to clean up because of the potential for fraud and abuse.

Consider this: They are pitting a hastily written bill, drafted without one hearing, considered without feedback from people back home, without proper vetting, all over the course of a few short weeks against some of the smartest accountants and tax attorneys that money can buy.

Who do you think is going to win that battle?

This is a bill that was drafted of, for, and by the powerful special interests in Washington, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, of all the policy changes that are being recommended in this legislation before us today, the one that scares me the most is the repeal of the so-called Johnson amendment.

The Johnson amendment basically says: If you are a religious organization or a nonprofit and if you engage in partisan political activity, you lose your tax-exempt status.

Repealing that has the potential of politicizing the pulpit nationwide. In fact, 103 religious organizations, 4,200 faith-based leaders in this country, and 5,500 nonprofits have written a letter to every Member of Congress telling us: Don't do this.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.

Updated November 1, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Senate Democratic Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Orrin Hatch,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Neal,

Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, when I go to my church, South Beaver Creek Lutheran Church, Sunday mornings with my family in rural western Wisconsin by our family farm, I view that place as a sanctuary for my soul; a place for us to congregate, to commune, to spend time in fellowship with our fellow neighbors, and to check up on one another.

Yes, preach values and preach moral lessons to our children, absolutely. But by repealing the Johnson amendment, you have the potential of creating conflict in the pews. You could be creating Republican and Democratic churches, mosques, and synagogues overnight.

This is one of the last refuges, one of the last institutions that we still have as a country given how much we are self-segregating and deciding whom we like to hang out with, what clubs we join, what people we want to associate with, even our own family members, because of political affiliation. Our places of worship are one of the last places we can come regardless of political affiliation.

This will create unnecessary strife and unnecessary conflict, and it has the potential of driving young people away from organized religion because they won't put up with this. It could be a backdoor attempt for a lot of political contributors now to get tax-exempt contributions to these organizations for direct, partisan political campaigns. That is why the Joint Committee on Taxation viewed this as a cost of over $2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reconsider and reject this, and let's prevent that conflict in our communities.