Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Wisconsin and my friend from Oregon that we appreciate their support for the funding for conservation at the House level. I have got to say honestly, though, we wish we would have had your support last July. I also say to my friends, and I mean my friends, that we

wish that we could work the will of the House and pass legislation here and send it over to the other body and have them rubber stamp it and send it down to the President and have him sign it, as we have done our work here. But in reality, that is not the way we can operate.

I say to my friend from Wisconsin, who served on the Agriculture Committee, and you know this, to my friend, we do not have partisan disagreements on this committee. My friend from Oklahoma will agree with that. We have regional differences. We have to balance those regional differences and try to figure out a way that those of us on the committee who care strongly about the commodity title are satisfied with the safety net but also realize that there has to be a reform. And those of us who care strongly about the conservation title realize that we need to have increased investment in conservation. You can pair that with energy and nutrition, everything else, but we are here to talk about conservation this afternoon.

I'd say to my friend, sure, we would like to have more money. My father used to always say to me that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. We have to put this together and we have to realize what is possible.

When we debated and discussed this bill in the House of Representatives, we had $13.6 billion in addition to baseline. When we are negotiating in the conference committee, we have $10 billion. So you can see the difference. So everyone had to give and take.

Again, I think when the conferees have done their work, we are going to see significant reform in the commodity title and you're going to see reform in the conservation title. The chairman asked me to make one thing perfectly clear in this motion to instruct. We have consistently said reform would apply to all titles, and we would spread scarce dollars out to more producers.

The conference agreement will do that, and we will fully fund conservation. We believe we have an obligation to do that. But we have limited resources. So we are going to do the best we can, hopefully tonight and tomorrow, to have a fully invested, robust title for conversation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friend from Oregon has left the Chamber, but I appreciate him looking out after the farmers in Pennsylvania. But I would just like to remind him that Pennsylvania leads the country in farmland preservation, and we have doubled the investment for farmland preservation in this conference report as we are working it through.

I also would like to remind my friend that not only have we preserved the dairy safety net, and dairy being the number one agriculture industry in Pennsylvania, that is very important; we have a new program that we are working on in the conference to have a feed cost adjustment as the cost of feed goes up, and that will be a great benefit to the farmers in Pennsylvania and in Wisconsin for that as the cost of feed goes up.

Also, we have for specialty crops, the first time, a $1.3 billion investment that will help farmers all across the country, but they will help them in Pennsylvania as well. So I appreciate my friend trying to help me out.

And I would just say to my friend from Wisconsin again, and repeating ourselves, that we are restrained. We were working with $13.6 billion; we now are working with $10 billion. The commodity title has been cut by tens of billions of dollars from the last farm bill. There is significant reform that we are going to accomplish. And the gentleman knows, because he served on the committee, that we have regional differences, and it is difficult to get consensus because of the geographical makeup of the committee.

So we are going to get there and we are going to fund conservation, but I would like to make one last point to the gentleman's comments about capping on conservation programs. We have noticed and discovered recently that there have been significant abuses in the conservation title, where wealthy people have purchased farms with no intention of farming and have become eligible to the tune of millions of dollars for conservation programs. That was not the intent, I don't believe, in any farm bill I ever voted for or the gentleman from Wisconsin voted for or the gentleman from Oklahoma. We never intended that. So the way to get around that is to have caps on that. And not only will you stop the abuses if you put caps on it from millionaires taking advantage of it, you will have more dollars to spread around to more people who are on those waiting lists right now.

My friend, we all wish we could do more. The gentleman from Oklahoma chaired the subcommittee when we began having hearings on it. With the last election, I became the chairman and he is now the ranking member. We are working very closely together. But we have limited resources. We are going to do the best we can, but we need a bill that we can get out of committee, get passed on this floor, passed in the Senate, and sent down to the President. And we are working very hard on that. I believe we are going to get a product that will get the majority of support significantly in this body.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2903) to amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond April 25, 2008, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from Oklahoma. This legislation is desperately needed in rural America and in agriculture country. The conferees are making progress, but Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte are not on the floor right now because they are in meetings with the Ways and Means

Committee and the Senate Finance Committee as progress is being made. But we need this one additional week to iron out the differences with the other body, and I urge the adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Rabbi Akiva Males for providing today's prayer and blessing for both the House and for our country.

Rabbi Males is a native of Cleveland, Ohio, which he left to pursue his ordainment by attending rabbinical schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Jerusalem, Israel; and Queens, New York. He was eventually ordained as a rabbi by the Rabbinical Seminary of America in Queens, New York.

Rabbi Males is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America. He and his wife Lynn reside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, located in my congressional district. He is now assisting Rabbi Dr. Chaim Schertz at Kesher Israel Congregation, a synagogue comprised of close to 200 members that has been an enhancing force in Harrisburg for over 100 years.

Rabbi Males is a pillar of faith, service, and commitment in the Harrisburg community, and I welcome him and his family to our Nation's Capital.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Agriculture, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

I want to commend the ranking member of the committee for the hard work that he has done with the chairman of the committee, who is now in a meeting with leadership, as we are trying to iron out the final details of a long process where a lot of people, particularly Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte, have put a lot of time and effort to get to this spot in the process where we are. We are hoping that we can meet our deadline of next Friday to see that we can have this conference report completed.

The ranking member has correctly evaluated the process that we have gone through as we try to get to this process, and we are in agreement. We believe that we can pass this farm bill without any tax increases.

Before I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I would just like to thank the ranking member for his comments and also to say to my friend from Wisconsin, who served on the committee, that he understands that we are fortunate to serve on one of the most bipartisan committees in the Congress. We do not have Democrat and Republican disagreements on agriculture, but we do have regional ones.

I believe that the final product will reflect those regional differences and also will have a significant amount of reform that all of us are going to be able to go home and talk about that we did something positive in this farm bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 106.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and thank him for his leadership and that of Mr. Goodlatte, leadership in his role as ranking member and former chairman of the committee, on this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, we have an energy crisis in this country, and we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. This piece of legislation before us today is going to address the resources under our jurisdiction as members of the Ag Committee, but I would be negligent as a proud son of the coal regions of Pennsylvania, the anthracite coal fields, if I didn't mention that I hope that future pieces of legislation that come before this body also address the opportunity of coal-to-liquid, how we need to take advantage of the vast resources that we have in coal in this country.

I would say to those who criticize the environmental aspects of coal- to-liquid to just come to my home in St. Clair, Pennsylvania, in Schuykill County and look at 200-to 300-foot comb banks, waste coal, that can be cleaned up and made into liquid fuel. So I hope in future proceedings before this House we're able to address that.

But I stand here proudly as a member of the Ag Committee and chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, in cooperation with my chairman and ranking member, to support this legislation.

As was mentioned by the chairman and the ranking member, we have an abundance of agriculture resources that we need to take advantage of in this country; and if we do not, we will remain to be dependent on the smooth, continuous flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf and Mexico and Venezuela. We have an opportunity to do something beginning today.

As we were writing the 2007 Ag bill, members of my subcommittee, we traveled to Penn State, to NC State, to the USDA labs and looked at the research that is being done on cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel; and when you look at the possibilities of the entire country, not one region excluding another, having the ability to participate in a move towards energy independence, when we look at cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel in the feedstocks that are so abundant, it's absolutely imperative that we take advantage of those and pass this legislation today.

As the ranking member mentioned, in the energy title we have in excess of a $2 billion loan guarantee program to help this infant industry take hold and allow the people on Wall Street, the investors, the private sector to be partners with the government as we move this forward.

So, Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Oregon.

I appreciate the gentleman for raising this issue. I agree that transferrable development programs are an important tool to protect farmland; however, I have some concerns about the way this amendment is drafted. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, I would be happy to work with him as this bill moves through the process to clarify that Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program funds can be used for this purpose in a way that ensures that the underlying program is not negatively affected.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I assure the gentleman he has my commitment as well as the commitment of the chairman of the full committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. And thank you for your leadership on this important piece of legislation that we have worked on in a very bipartisan manner. And thank you for the leeway that you have given the subcommittee chairman in bringing this product to the floor.

And it's not easy. We are a diverse country when it comes to our agriculture interests, and the diversity on the committee reflects that. But we all came together. We all gave up things that we wanted in the bill. The chairman has been talking for 2 years about permanent disaster relief. That's not in the bill because we couldn't afford everything. Everything that I wanted for the northeast is not in the bill. Everything the ranking member wanted for Virginia or my good friend, Mr. Lucas, for Oklahoma is not in the bill. We all had to come together, and we have delivered a product that is fair.

In the subcommittee that I chair, under the conservation title, a $4.3 billion increase in conservation; that's above baseline, 35 percent increase. We went around the country hearing what farmers cared about the most about conservation; it was EQIP. What did we do with EQIP? We put 50 percent additional funding in EQIP.

In my neck of the woods and in the ranking member's neck of the woods in the mid-Atlantic, farmland preservation, by far. When we went to New York to have the hearing, the importance of farmland preservation. In this bill, we have a 100 percent increase in farmland preservation, as well as other water quality improvements. For those who care about the Chesapeake Bay, $150 million for river restoration. So we have a strong conservation title.

Credit. We made improvements for credit that we will be discussing shortly after general debates that will make credit more accessible in rural America.

Energy. Everybody in this Congress, not just committee, but everybody in this Congress has been talking about the need for us to become more energy independent. In this bill, we have $2.4 billion in the energy title; $2 billion in loan guarantees so we can help this infant industry of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and take advantage of our agricultural natural resources that are so abundant in this country so that we can now take a step towards being no longer dependent upon the smooth, continuous flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

This is a good bill, and I ask everyone to support it.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment.

What we tried to do in the subcommittee, Mr. Lucas and I, was try to see that access to credit was readily available in rural America, particularly in the agriculture sector. We tried to find a way to form a compromise between a Farm Credit System and the banking industry. We held hearings and brought them together, and we found out we had managed to anger both sides; so maybe we had a pretty good compromise.

The Farm Credit System in the HORIZONS project wanted to expand rural housing from 2,500 to 50,000. They wanted to expand on agriculture lending to agriculture-related businesses, a great diversion from where they are limited right now. And we thought that was too far, but we wanted to make sure there was access to credit in rural America, and we think we came up with a pretty good compromise.

In increasing the rural housing from 2,500 to 6,000, we are, all of us, not only in this committee, but this Congress, anxious to try to find ways to use renewable energy sources, and we believe that in this industry there is going to be a lack of credit. As the chairman of the full committee has said during this debate, he has noticed that in his home State of Minnesota. So we thought extending the credit to energy- related agriculture lending through the Farm Credit System was reasonable and responsible and something that was a good compromise.

So, Madam Chairman, we feel in the committee that we have come up with a pretty good compromise, something that is going to reflect the conditions in rural America, and something that we believe that is in the best interest of rural America and the agriculture community.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for his comments. And I just want to assure him that we can count votes as well.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007.

Appropriate regulation for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks is crucial to the overall health of housing and communities throughout America. I commend both Chairman Frank and GSE Subcommittee Chairman Kanjorski for their diligent and thoughtful work on this legislation.

An issue of concern to me and many in my district is the effect of the legislation on the

FHLBank System. Their inclusion in this bill is not due to a perceived lack of proper regulation, but from a widely held desire to place the three housing GSEs under one ``world-class'' regulator capable of monitoring their complex financial information. Despite their similar benefit to the housing market and use of complex hedging transactions, the GSEs are different, and I believe the new regulator must recognize the differences in their business models, products, and missions.

This legislation recognizes these differences by creating separate divisions within the new regulator: one for the FHLBanks, and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, the bill also makes clear that the mission of FHLBanks is different, and not only deals with housing finance but economic and community development as well.

In addition to the Affordable Housing Program (AHP), which has provided $5 million in funds supporting over 1,000 units of housing in my district, the FHLBank of Pittsburgh operates a number of programs that support community and economic development.

Their ``Banking on Business'' (BOB) program helps eligible small businesses with start-up and expansion costs. Each dollar in BOB funding typically leverages an additional six dollars in financial resources to small businesses in the region, thereby creating or retaining jobs. Since 2000, FHLBank Pittsburgh has funded more than $27.5 million in BOB funding to assist small businesses in their three- state region, creating or retaining more than 3,821 jobs.

In my district alone, the FHLBank Pittsburgh has provided over $1.5 million in BOB financing, supporting 18 small businesses and leveraging over $17 million in additional funding. The BOB program works in partnership with leading community banks in a number of very important efforts. For example, Leesport Bank used BOB to provide $180,000 for Hamburg Industries, Inc. to assist in expansion costs. Hamburg Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of brooms, mops and brushes in Hamburg, PA. Legacy Bank used BOB to lend $21,000 to Math Inc. to assist in start-up costs. Math Inc. is engaged in manufacturing countertops, cabinets and architectural millwork for commercial applications. Further, First National Community Bank provided $200,000 in BOB funds to Keystone Potato Products, LLC to assist in start-up costs. Keystone Potato Products, LLC. is a dehydrated food producer in Hegins, PA.

The Pittsburgh Bank also operates the Community Lending Program (CLP), an $825 million non-competitive revolving loan pool that offers loans to member financial institutions for community and economic development projects that create housing, improve business districts, and strengthen neighborhoods. In my district, CLP has provided over $40 million for 16 projects. One of these involved Mid-Penn Bank, a leading community bank in my district, using the CLP to provide $4.5 million in low-cost FHLBank funds for the rehabilitation of Cole Crest: a low income elderly, disabled, and family apartment complex in Steelton, PA. The funds were provided through Mid-Penn Bank as an alternative to traditional bond financing, saving the Dauphin County Housing Authority significant costs over the life of the loan.

As a Member of Congress representing a rural region with community and economic development needs, I appreciate the partnership between the Federal Home Loan Banks and the community banks of my district. The mission of the Federal Home Loan Banks in the area of economic and community development is vital, and I applaud the clarification of that mission in H.R. 1427.

I want to add my voice to those in the Congress advocating that the new regulator encourage this mission by applying a new emphasis on community and economic development to all Federal Home Loan Banks' activities. I see this language as fostering a statutory and regulatory environment that will support and encourage further development of new ways to support economic development, public finance and infrastructure in a partnership with Federal Home Loan Banks, their members, and local governments that will bring needed help to the small and rural communities of my district.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus, I rise today to honor correctional officers and employees of correctional facilities across our country.

May 6, 2007 kicked off the National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. Throughout the week, correctional officers will be here in Washington to speak with their elected officials, present awards to officers whose exceptional service merits special recognition, and honor the memory of fallen comrades who had made the ultimate sacrifice while on duty.

I am proud to sponsor House Resolution 264, along with my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Ellsworth, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis. H. Res. 264 is a bipartisan resolution designed to honor correctional officers and employees by acknowledging and supporting the goals and ideals of National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. The resolution directly honors correctional workers at all levels, local, State and Federal, including psychologists, chaplains, teachers, and kitchen staff.

Correctional facilities are a critical component of our public safety and criminal justice systems. We rely on correctional facilities to mend the behavior of certain members of our society. To do that, these facilities must rely on correctional officers and other personnel who are highly trained to work in a challenging and often dangerous environment. Before coming to Congress I had the honor of working alongside these men and women when I served as a probation officer and then Sheriff of Schuylkill County, which houses a Federal and state prison. The respect I gained for these public servants is indescribable and I thank them for the countless ways they benefit our communities.

Correctional officers and staff work each day to protect society from the threat of criminal activity. They risk their lives ensuring that we are safe. They maintain order in a dangerous place and ensure the basic needs of one of the most difficult groups in society are addressed. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we get the opportunity to thank them for the good work they do and I commend my colleagues in the House or Representatives for passing House Resolution 264.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63. I

also rise in strong support of the brave men and women who have served or are serving in Iraq and around the world.

I represent thousands of men and women on Active Duty and in the National Guard and in the Reserves. I have visited our wounded and injured troops at both Walter Reed and Landstuhl Regional Center in Germany. My commitment to our brave men and women is unwavering. However, I disagree with deploying more than 20,000 more U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

The President has consistently said that the size of the force would be determined by military leaders on the ground. Yet the two previous leading commanders on the ground do not support the addition of more troops. General George Casey, the former commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq and current chief of staff of the Army, advocated transferring security duties to Iraqi soldiers.

General Casey said, ``The longer we and the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the Government of Iraq has to make the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias.'' He goes on to say, ``And the other thing is that they continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which at face are their problems. It has always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq in the long run.''

Additionally, General John P. Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, has said that he did not believe that adding more American troops right now is the solution to the problem, and also advocated transferring responsibility to the Iraqis.

General Abizaid said, ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''

During the course of the war, I visited Iraq twice, in 2003 and 2005. While I was there, the main goal, other than achieving victory, was developing Iraq's infrastructure. Yet after 4 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, we have not had much success in improving infrastructure and still face serious problems. Oil production is one- half of the prewar level, while conditions of basic services, such as water, power and sewage, are below that. In Baghdad, electricity levels are at an all-time low. And while we have spent billions of dollars on these problems, $9 billion is lost and unaccounted for.

That is why I also rise today in support of the Blue Dog resolution which provides cost accountability for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This resolution will directly address the infrastructure and security failures in Iraq. More specifically, the resolution requires the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction to report to Congress every 90 days with:

One, a detailed accounting of how military and reconstruction funds in Iraq have been spent;

Two, a detailed accounting of the types and terms of contracts awarded on behalf of the United States;

Three, a description of efforts to obtain support and assistance from other countries toward the rehabilitation of Iraq; and, finally,

Four, an assessment of what additional funding is needed to complete military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including a plan for the security of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have done their job and performed with great courage and honor. The solution in Iraq can no longer be resolved militarily. We must win both politically and diplomatically. We must ask Iraq's six neighbors to use influence that is consistent with our own objectives, and we must convince them that stability in the region is in their best interests.

In closing, I want to offer my utmost gratitude and appreciation for our troops. Our thoughts are with these brave men and women and also with their families as we pray for them to return safely.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, a piece of legislation that will move us towards energy independence. We are 65 percent dependent upon foreign energy, and we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in reference to the prior debate, that includes coal.

The only reason we do not have a coal-to-liquid plant in the United States of America right now has nothing to do with anyone in this Chamber on either side of the aisle, but it has directly to do with the Department of Energy that refuses to follow the letter of the law and enforce a loan guarantee of $100 million. If they would do that, we would have a coal-to-liquid plant right now in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the borough of Gilberton. We need to take advantage of all of our natural resources. And serving as the vice chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I look forward to taking advantage of our agriculture natural resources.

The chairman and ranking member last year, when their roles were reversed, traveled around the country having hearings, trying to see what we need to do in the next farm bill. One thing was heard loud and clear, we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in the trip to Minnesota at the chairman's district, when we learned how far ahead the State of Minnesota is in ethanol production and cellulosic research, we understood right then what we need to do in writing this farm bill.

So I rise in support of this legislation to give us the opportunity to do the research, to find the feedstocks to make us energy independent so we can, once and for all, not depend upon foreign energy and be independent and bring the price down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Stephen R. Reed of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, who was voted America's number one mayor in the World Mayor 2006 online poll by the City Mayor organization.

Mayor Reed, the 7-term mayor of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is the only United States mayor to ever break into the top 3 spots in the annual online contest finishing third in the world. From January to May each year, citizens nominate mayors in the contest then choose from a list of fifty finalists from June to October. This year, over 103,000 people voted giving Mayor Reed more than 7,000 votes.

Under his leadership, the Pennsylvania state capital has been revitalized with the development of shops, hotels, and restaurants in the downtown area that once stood virtually vacant; the Harrisburg Senators baseball games and other attractions have revived tourism in the city; the Harrisburg University was established; and graduation rates have increases since Mr. Reed took control of the city school district.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to recognize a man who has dedicated his entire life to the City of Harrisburg, helping hundreds of people in my district, including myself. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Stephen R. Reed on his many years of devoted public service and thank him for the many contributions he has made toward the well being of the citizens of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.