Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to help focus on more long-lasting protection for the water, wildlife, and soil. I appreciate what the ranking member said in terms of issues for additional funding for wildlife habitat, and I have another amendment coming forward which I think helps address that. In the meantime, having an opportunity here to--and I mentioned in the amendment ``to the extent possible,'' the 20 percent is dedicated for the Continuous Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Being able to focus and leverage the local funds seems to me to provide long-term stability and leveraging the State matching. I see my colleague from Virginia is here, but he wants to speak to the next amendment. I respectfully request that Members join with me in an amendment that is supported by the Environmental Working Group, the National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Trust, Organic Trade Association, Slow Food, Food Democracy Now, Organic Consumers Union, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Allowing us to be able to move forward in this regard, I think, would be a positive. I didn't hear any compelling reasons from my friends other than they thought it would be taken care of. I think this amendment will ensure that it will move forward and respectfully ask that it be approved. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I appreciate the Rules Committee having made this amendment in order. It makes important revenue-neutral changes to the EQIP program to protect the original intent of the program, to use tax dollars better to help more farmers, and to produce better results for the taxpayers. In difficult budget times, we must prioritize maximizing value and saving money. This amendment makes several changes to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to restore the 1996 language. It implements stricter payment limits to make sure we're not spending too much money on any one project. And at a time when demand for conservation funding is as much as four times greater than the supply, we can't afford to let a few huge projects crowd out available funding. This amendment also reinstates the original 1996 EQIP language which eliminated spending for factory farms. That language was included in 1996 because Members were nervous that too much of the EQIP would end up going to just a few family farm projects, and they were right. The legislation also provides additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or antibiotics. As the United States doctors and scientists become increasingly concerned about the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in meat production, we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for farmers and ranchers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics. Finally, it clarifies that EQIP is intended to be used as a short- term program and protects the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program set- aside, which has been in place since the program began. The opposition comes from those who are using conservation dollars for purposes that most Americans would not consider to be conservation related. Recent data shows that one in four EQIP dollars in the last 10 years has been spent on large structural projects that produce limited conservation benefits and are extremely expensive. I noted in the press this last week one project, almost $2 million, yet the average is about $13,500. I appreciate the opportunity to start this discussion and think about how best to spend limited conservation dollars for maximum conservation benefits. I respectfully suggest that that's to be found with this amendment, and I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 75 seconds to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my friend's joining me. The crux of this issue is, who's going to get the benefit? There were over 300,000 contracts, and 92 projects took 20 percent of the money. This amendment would target it for those far greater number. Most of the large, confined animal feedlot operations manage on their own--the rest of them can. Focus it for people who need it the most, not have a bunch of the money sucked up by large, industrial agricultural activities. Provide more benefit for more farmers and ranchers. Approve this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Colorado and my friend from Kentucky in moving this forward. Nineteen States have passed pro-industrial hemp legislation; nine States removing barriers to its production altogether. As has been pointed out, these products are perfectly legal in the United States, some $300 million a year, but it just has to be grown someplace else. It's outrageous that American farmers can't produce it, but what this amendment does is to simply permit the research opportunities for colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for academic and agricultural research purposes. If this amendment passes and we're able to do this research in agricultural colleges and universities, then we're not going to have stupid talking points coming from DEA, and we won't have misleading statements that are made. People will understand why other countries have been able to figure this out, and the United States will be able. Nobody, regardless of your position on this, should be opposed to allowing our research colleges and universities to be able to do a deep dive to be able to find out what's possible.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the House is in the process this week of dealing with the most important bill that almost no one has paid any attention to. I'm talking about the FARRM Bill. It goes far beyond dealing with needs of rural and small town America. It's going to involve, with all likelihood, given the way the past farm bills have exceeded their budget estimates, it's very likely to be over $1 trillion. The FARRM Bill is actually getting better, slowly but surely, but it has a long way to go to get the most value out of this bill for America's farmers and ranchers, for the people who eat and for protection of the environment. Mr. Speaker, this week I will be offering some amendments that I hope will be made in order that will try and coax more value out of this process. The first and foremost, based on legislation I've introduced, the Balancing Food, Farm, and Environment Act, would strengthen the environmental quality incentives program to have stricter payments, so we're not putting too much money into any one project, and would disallow spending for large factory farms, but provide additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or antibiotics and stretch those conservation dollars further. I also have an amendment that would reform the Conservation Reserve Program to direct more money to conservation enhancement and continuous conservation reserve subprograms to target the most environmentally sensitive areas and reenroll higher priority lands, providing more stability for farmers, better results for the taxpayers, and more flexibility at the State level. Third, and perhaps most important, an amendment I'm cosponsoring, along with Mr. Chaffetz, would apply reasonable limits for means testing crop insurance. The crop insurance program needs greater scrutiny by Congress. It is an area where the Federal Government provides huge subsidies to insurance companies to sell and service the policies. It pays most of the indemnities when there are losses and generous subsidies to make the premiums cheaper for farmers. Today, in The New York Times, there was an article that talks about the fraud and waste in the program that, really, we haven't zeroed in. There are clear areas of abuse that need more attention. My friend Mr. McGovern had an amendment that said before you slash nutrition, at least have the rate of fraud and abuse down to the same level as food stamps. I think that's a good proposal. The amendment that I have introduced with Mr. Chaffetz, it would put a limit of $750,000, beyond which we would no longer subsidize the crop insurance for the large agribusinesses. It's not that they couldn't have crop insurance; it's just the taxpayer will not be on the hook. It's important for us to start paying attention to the crop insurance program. As we, theoretically, get rid of direct payments, although we still are going to have direct payments for cotton, and I have an amendment on that as well, it's important to look at the overall structure of this program. We don't want to be in a situation where, actually, we're going to end up paying more for crop insurance than the cost of traditional commodity programs proposed by the House and the Senate, and that there are not incentives to be able to use it efficiently and to root out fraud and abuse. I would strongly urge my colleagues to look at amendments like I have proposed, and others. Look at how the FARRM Bill, the most important environmental nutrition and economic development for small towns and rural America, can be done better. It's past time to have a farm bill that is environmentally sound, that is cost effective and targets areas that need the help the most. This ought to be an area where we can follow through on the desire to get more value out of tax dollars while we help more people. I look forward to the debate this week. I hope it is robust, and I do hope that we'll be able to debate the wide range of these issues that would make this FARRM Bill much better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, here they go again. Once more, the Republican controlled House is seeking to limit women's access to safe reproductive health care through this legislation, the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' While it is couched in the language of protecting unborn fetuses from pain, this bill is nothing more than a poorly disguised effort to force women and their families to give up their constitutionally protected rights (so far). The bill is not going anywhere and it inflames an issue that is among the most sensitive. Roe vs. Wade, which was decided 40 years ago, is the law of the land. But still we have to go through this annual charade as Republican leadership tries to force those of us who support women's control over their health and potential to have children in the future to take a ``hard vote.'' I am no political Pollyanna; I understand the politics behind this strategy. But let me say, unequivocally, that this is no ``hard vote'' for me. It is not hard for me to stand with the millions of women who depend on access to safe, legal abortion. It is not hard for me to vote against any bill that imposes the will of an intolerant, albeit vocal, minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is not hard for me to protect freedom of choice, because it is right and it is just. We have real challenges to address as a country, and yet Republican leadership is choosing to focus its efforts on this bill that would trump women's health, override family decisions, and compromises the ability to decide when and if to start a family. It's a blatant attack on women and it's not hard for me to say that it is wrong.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the leadership for including this amendment in the en bloc amendment. It is important that we deal with improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. In a situation all too familiar for our military families, every few years they find themselves living in a new military base with their children having to start a new school and having to adapt to a new environment. Making this transition even more difficult, their loved ones could be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan in constant danger. This is an effort to make sure that we help our military installations include things that enhance the livability of that environment, to help with green space, public gardens, sidewalks, bike and running trails, things that are recognized in urban development as important amenities that add value and quality of life, while also helping the Department of Defense adapt best practices to build military bases to promote close-knit communities that work for families, which is critical. I appreciate the progress that's been made and the committee working with us to make sure that this is enhanced as we move forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chair, we spend appropriate time on the floor commemorating the bravery of our men and women who were in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there were other brave men and women who worked with our soldiers, putting themselves in harm's way, and I'm referring to foreign nationals--Iraqis and Afghanistan citizens who were interpreters and who were drivers, people working for NGOs, people who made it possible for our troops to perform at the highest level. They served shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform. Now, I am pleased that there is a partial extension in the Special Immigrant Visa program in the underlying bill for Iraqis and Afghanis. It's important that we have these special visas. I have been pleased to have played a small role in helping create the Special Immigrant Visa program that enables these people to escape harm's way. Many of them are in danger of being killed because people know that they helped our forces, and they are left behind. I really appreciate the ranking member, the chair, and their staff for the work to help partially extend the Special Immigration Visa program. But this bipartisan amendment, offered with my colleagues, Congresswoman Gabbard and Representatives Kinzinger and Stivers, all three of whom served in the field of battle, is an opportunity to help ensure these programs finish the job for which they were created. These programs expire for Iraq at the end of this fiscal year. That's September 30, and the following September 30 for Afghanistan. And while they are set to expire, those in Iraq and Afghanistan who made our mission possible continue to be plagued by inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles. Through fiscal year 2012, only 22 percent of the available Iraq SIVs have been issued, and only 12 percent for Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported that over 5,000 documentarily complete Afghan applications remain in a backlog. The backlog and delay means not just weeks or months, but years for those who risked their lives to help the U.S. mission, and means living in constant fear and hiding, knowing they or their families could be killed at any moment. Our amendment demonstrates a strong commitment from the House for comprehensive extension and reform in conference. It enhances the programs by providing efficiency, transparency, accuracy, and oversight. Madam Chair, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Budget Committee hearing, we had Secretary Hagel and Joint Chief of Staff Dempsey walk us through the impossible position that the Department of Defense has been placed in. Now, I'll be the first to admit--as I think they would; in fact, they said as much in the hearing--that there are areas of opportunity for additional savings, and that the Department of Defense can itself do a better job. When you have almost half of the world's military spending by the United States, even though we are only 5 percent of the world's population and less than a quarter of the world's economic might, we can and should be able to squeeze more value. But the problem is not so much that the Department of Defense isn't willing to come forward with changes that need to be made; a great part of this problem is Congress itself. I have proposed, from the Department of Defense, that we actually close bases, that we reform compensation and health care, that we don't force weapons systems on the Department of Defense that the military doesn't want or need. These are things that gets Congress weak in the knees. It's time for us to step up to make sure that we are having the world's most powerful military, but that we are squeezing more value out of it. One critical area that needs greater attention is our nuclear deterrent. We have far more nuclear weapons than we'd ever want, need, or could use. It's been 68 years since the United States used a nuclear weapon in war; and no matter what you do in terms of deterrence, there's no question that we don't have to blow the world up hundreds of times over to have that deterrent work. Yet, sadly, we are poised to spend almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. The administration was forced by former Senator Kyl, as a concession for the START Treaty, to invest even more in weapons modernization. We need to step up and change that. There are other details that need attention. When the military looked at a proposal to streamline the PX operation, where military families shop, there was a proposal by major retailers to provide exactly the same service, in many cases, equally convenient, saving a billion dollars; and yet the political pushback was such that the Pentagon turned away. Now, dealing with things like military bands and the PX and NASCAR sponsorship are appropriate, but that's rounding error. Those are small items. We need to deal with reforming the military, to deal with the new threats and challenges that are more serious and immediate and largely impervious to the major military footprint we've got. We need to start now, in partnership with the Department of Defense, to reduce the footprint, to restructure the force, and reform pay and benefits. We were told yesterday that we can either reform TRICARE over the next 5 years, or we'll have 25,000 more troops to lay off. These proposals are stark, but they are immediate and they are real; and we should take advantage of them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate the hard work that the committee has undertaken. We have before you a bipartisan amendment also offered by my colleagues Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Bentivolio. The purpose of the amendment is simple: it will help make the naval fleet stronger and more sustainable by allowing the Navy to decide the level of aircraft carriers in the future; stay at the current level of 10 at some point in the future instead of going back to a congressionally mandated level. It does not eliminate any aircraft carriers. The entire Department of Defense is in the midst of a major reality check as budgets shrink, priorities change, and new technologies emerge. I don't pretend to be a naval expert, but our Navy is being pushed into shallow waters as a result of sequestration. And now more than ever, we should allow them to make the decisions. I have been a little concerned that some people in opposition say that this amendment would make a 10-carrier fleet permanent. Nothing could be further from the truth. It simply will allow the Navy to decide if it wants 10 aircraft carriers at some point in the next three decades. Now, if they're afraid that this will happen, then it means they think that the Navy 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now will decide that they have higher strategic needs. The history of the 12-carrier requirement was imposed for the first time in two centuries by Congress in 2006. That number, being unsustainable, was reduced to 11 in 2007. That cap still being too high, the Navy had to seek a waiver from the Congress to temporarily drop it to 10. If the amendment passes, the Navy will still go back to 11 carriers in 2016 when the Ford is commissioned. But at that point, we should allow the Navy to decide, not people in Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say the Navy is going to have 11 carriers when the one under construction goes into operation. Nothing in this amendment denies them that. What it says is that, subsequently, going out 20 or 30 years, the decision about the minimum level will be left to the Navy, not Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. The notion here that somehow, unless we impose a permanent mandate on the Navy, they are not going to do what my friends from Connecticut and Virginia say they're going to do, I think, is ludicrous. This is a symbol of Congress micromanaging, substituting its judgment for that of the command structure. It is, I think, important for us to, in a small way, express confidence in them. They will have their 11 aircraft carriers, as the Gerald Ford is commissioned. They'll be back at 11. The question is, are we going to have a mandate in perpetuity to substitute our judgment for the realities of the Navy in 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, regardless of force structure, threats or technology? This is a small symbol of what's wrong with the process here and why we can't get control over many of the budget issues. I'd respectfully suggest support for this bipartisan amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I supported the passage of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform Act in 2010 to rein in Wall Street, end taxpayer bailouts of big banks, and protect consumers. Under this Act, the CFTC and the SEC were charged with regulating a number of previously unregulated or under-regulated Wall Street and financial service sector activities that led in large part to the 2008 crisis, including the $700 trillion derivatives market. While Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the reforms enacted under Dodd-Frank are clear and effective--and many may still require clarification from Congress--the bill under consideration today, H.R. 1526, is premature and potentially damaging. I therefore do not support this legislation. Regulators at the CFTC and the SEC continue to make progress on implementing important regulations of the derivatives market. Given this progress and the fact that this is an ongoing process, intervening and micromanaging the rulemaking process at this stage would only delay the positive benefits these changes will have for Americans. I also have concerns that this legislation sets a policy that would make it more difficult for regulators to ensure that U.S. derivatives transactions conducted overseas through foreign entities are subject to the new rules, potentially opening up a hole in the regulatory process. In requiring that the CFTC and the SEC issue a joint determination along with a formal report to Congress to establish that another country's rules are not ``broadly comparable'' to U.S. rules, this legislation creates an extra layer of bureaucracy on these already overburdened agencies that will hinder their effectiveness. Regulating the derivatives market is a huge and important job. This legislation slows this progress without benefit to the American people or our economy.