Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Bishop), who has some experience with problems of water pollution and erosion.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting notice that I will not be able to attend the legislative sessions of the House of Representatives on the following dates that are currently scheduled. I will be absent from July 19 through July 22 and from August 2 through August 5 for the marriages of my daughter and my son.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership and the leadership of Chair Biggert for bringing this important legislation to the floor. It is true, I have been working in these areas for the last 10 years to make sure that the program is stable in the long term and encourages participation. Here we are raising rates where necessary to more accurately reflect flood risk. For too long, homeowners in low-risk areas have been subsidizing those in high-risk areas, all backed by the Federal taxpayers. This bill will make the program closer to being actuarially sound. I appreciate the work done to deal with repetitively flooded properties, which comprise 2 percent of the properties insured by the program but are responsible for 30 percent of the claims. We do people no favors by paying them to rebuild in the same way, in the same place, time and time again in harm's way. That's why I strongly support the amendment that has been included in the en bloc to reauthorize and streamline a number of mitigation programs targeted towards repetitive flood programs. I authored, with my colleague Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a program to provide mitigation assistance for ``severe repetitive loss properties.'' Unfortunately, since 2004, we found the program has been hard for FEMA to administer. When they have been able to get the program off the ground, it has allowed mitigation of almost 600 properties and saved $125 million. But if we are able to move forward here, allowing the program to work right, it can make a huge, long-term difference both in the lives of property owners as well as the fiscal stability of the program. The Waters amendment addresses the administrative programs by combining three mitigation programs into one streamlined provision, removes red tape, and enables FEMA to more easily work with the communities to mitigate the properties. It is important to note that it does not cost the taxpayers any money. The money for mitigation comes from the flood insurance fund made up of premium dollars, and each dollar spent on mitigation saves the fund far more in the future. I appreciate the work of Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Waters, Chair Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, and the committee to dig into the details here to ensure that FEMA will continue to have the tools it needs to address the properties that are costing the program the most. This is going to go a long way toward helping people out of the cycle of flooding and will help reduce the heavy drain that these properties have on the flood insurance program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my hometown is often held out as an example of a community where livability is a primary goal. For the last forty years, people have been pioneering efforts to make cities work better through creative land use planning, zoning, transportation initiatives, public art and public spaces. There have been many who have helped shape this way of thinking and prove its effectiveness with results on the ground. Politicians, civic and business leaders have all played important roles, but none has been more influential but less publicly known than Greg Baldwin. Greg was a prominent Portland architect and designer who grew up in the city and went on to earn three Harvard degrees and study abroad. He came by his vision and commitment honestly; his father was a dedicated public servant and a key administrator in Portland for years with schools, the Port Commission, and later in life as the first real Commissioner of Transportation for the state of Oregon. Greg played a leadership role, striving for excellence in design in our community with revitalization of our schools, creating our light rail system, and the Portland Transit Mall. Greg Baldwin was sought after for projects around the country that benefited from his keen eye and grand sense of aesthetics--the things that one would expect from a leading architect. Yet, his most enduring gift was an insight into how planning and civic engagement can coax more out of these opportunities to shape our built environment, which in turn shapes us. Greg was patient, thoughtful, and a good listener, as well as being fair and smart. He excelled in bringing various groups together. He seemed able to help anyone who shared the ultimate goal of a signature project to help understand the contributions that everyone could make to achieve the desired objective. With all his intellect and professional accomplishments, he was foremost a great friend and accomplished artist. Committed to family, friends, and coworkers he was an outstanding human being. While he will be deeply missed, those who mourn his passing will take comfort knowing his many contributions will influence communities across America for generations to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregonians are mourning the passing of a pioneering female leader of truly historic dimension. Betty Roberts was a pioneer in every sense of the word. There have been women in our community who as the first Oregon female Member of Congress or first Portland Mayor over half a century ago were pioneers--but Betty was unique. Yes, Betty Roberts was the first woman to serve on Oregon's Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court. Her most important contributions began when she was the only woman in the State Senate. In this unique position of leadership she willfully tackled the problems that face women in politics and society. She understood the challenges facing women who were pioneering these efforts. As she broke barrier after barrier she learned lessons the hard way. With grit and legislative leadership she fought to protect women's health and civil liberties and their efforts in the marketplace. Betty ran amazingly strong statewide campaigns for Governor and U.S. Senate. While she didn't win the elections, she proved her strength, character, and vision. Her many accomplishments in politics, and a career as a successful educator, lawyer, legislator, and jurist stood out, but it was her strong will and sensitivity that made her an inspirational role model. Betty demonstrated what was possible. Today there are hundreds of people that she inspired who have assumed leadership on the bench, at the bar, in government and through civic and business leadership. In turn, these women are inspiring the next generation which may be Betty's most enduring legacy--a legacy that will benefit our state for generations to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is no region of the world more critical to achieving peace and security for Americans than the Middle East, yet no series of interconnected issues that has been more complex or vexing. Since coming to Congress I have been an advocate of stronger United States engagement to advance negotiations for a two-state solution and for a vision of a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side. I, along with the rest of Congress and the administration, share the goal of preventing a vote for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations this September. Such a course of action will not hasten the creation of an independent Palestine, and will undermine progress. Unfortunately, the message delivered by H. Res. 268 was undercut by failing to present an evenhanded document. There was no acknowledgement of the administration's balanced approach to Middle East policy and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in particular. The policy is consistent by political and historical standards--calling for a negotiated two-state solution along the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps as the starting point in this dialogue. This is the language of current and previous U.S. administrations and was employed by the Israeli Prime Minister within the last year. The resolution would have been more credible by mentioning the unfair comments of Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington. A mention of U.S. opposition to Israel's unilateral construction of settlements would get the attention of the Palestinians, who after all we are trying to influence. To the extent that Congress is going to opine, it should do so in a balanced way. That is how we can move forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1249, which will help America maintain its distinction as the most innovative country in the world. For too long, independent inventors, small businesses, and America's leading universities and technology companies have been mired in a convoluted patent process that has stifled innovation and job creation. H.R. 1249 streamlines and clarifies the patent process, giving inventors and investors the certainty they need to expand their businesses and grow the economy. This legislation also gives the United States Patent and Trademark Office the tools it needs to process the hundreds of thousands of applications it receives every year, increasing their ability to adjust its fees to reflect the actual costs of the services it provides, to fast-track patent applications, and to expand opportunities for post- grant review of patents. I remain deeply concerned that, under the manager's amendment, the Patent and Trademark Office will have fewer resources to pursue these objectives, a change which risks squandering the very opportunities created by the remainder of the legislation. Innovative stakeholders in my district have voiced concerns that the legislation's expansion of the defense of ``prior user rights'' will weaken their ability to protect their patentable innovations and give rise to widespread trade secret litigation, particularly for those areas of research the blend federal investment and private investment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these concerns are addressed, so that America's finest universities and research centers can continue their role as global leaders of innovation. H.R. 1249 is a strong step toward protecting the administration of our system of intellectual property rights. This is a worthy bipartisan accomplishment. I am concerned that some of my colleagues have championed this bill as the ultimate job-creator and that once it passes, they will forget about the millions of Americans that are still struggling to find work. Patent reform is important, but what out-of-work Americans need most are jobs. I urge my colleagues to build on this bipartisan momentum and work together to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure, the most efficient way to create jobs and strengthen our economy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered two bills that focused on United States involvement in Libya. Both failed to adequately address our role in that country. H.J. Res. 68 is the less objectionable of the two. I reluctantly supported this Resolution because it reaffirmed the United States limited participation in an international coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Libya and bars all funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the Armed Services or private security contractors on the ground. It also sets a clear deadline for U.S. involvement there. What I would have liked to see offered was the Resolution sponsored by Senators Kerry and McCain. The Kerry/McCain Resolution goes further and clearly defines our interests and objectives in the region. It makes clear that it is the sense of this Congress that we will support the Libyan people and political reform in the country; it clearly defines our goal in Libya as the removal of Mummar Qaddafi and his family from power through the NATO mission outlined by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which includes diplomatic and economic pressures; and that we must support the Libyan people transition to a representational democracy. H.R. 2278 would prevent the Department of Defense from using any funds to support NATO in its mission to stop the slaughter of civilians by a dictator who has time and again made clear his disregard for the lives of innocents. Of equal concern is the fact that H.R. 2278 sets an unfortunate precedent and undermines key global institutions by turning our backs to a unified call for intervention. Preventing U.S. action would endanger the recent display of democratic aspirations by so many in the region and only emboldens the other despots of the world such as Syria, Iran, and Yemen, suggesting there are no consequences for murdering peaceful protesters. As I have said from the start, I would support thoughtful legislation that acknowledges the U.S. has chosen to answer the cries of the innocent Libyan people, but makes clear that our commitment to their aspirations of self governance is not open-ended, and which clearly defines our goals and--more importantly--limits. That is why I voted for H.J. Res. 68 and look towards the Kerry/McCain Resolution to carry the day because it sets the right tone.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the inaugural briefing of the Congressional Neurologic Science Caucus. The caucus seeks to involve and inform people on Capitol Hill about advances, opportunities, and challenges that face us with neuroscience. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague, Kathy McMorris Rodgers, who is founding cochair of this effort and someone who cares deeply about neuroscience issues, achieved in part through some difficult personal experience. I admire her courage and appreciate her adding to this important agenda. We're discovering so many areas related to the brain and so much about how the neurological system works, how it's damaged, how it recovers, how the brain responds to our environment, understanding interrelationships between traumatic brain injury, hydrocephalous, dementia, Alzheimer's. We stand to gain so much from this research. Developments in neuroscience offer the greatest opportunity for the 26 percent of American adults who suffer from mental disorders to reduce and perhaps avoid dysfunction, disease to live better, healthier lives. The tremendous toll on victims and their families, their employees, employers and friends, the Federal Government needs to be aggressively involved and engaged. We hope the Neuroscience Caucus can help do just that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it's time, after a decade, to wind down this American-Afghanistan adventure. With his speech last night, President Obama started a process America needs to accelerate, removing 100,000 combat troops from Afghanistan. I supported the initial move 10 years ago against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It began on a very hopeful note, even with nations like Iran working with the United States in that critical 2001-2002 post-9/ 11 era. It was a tragic mistake not to finish the job and withdraw with global support. Instead, the Bush administration, sadly, with support from too many in Congress, started a reckless, flawed and ultimately tragic war in Iraq. President Obama reasonably says that we won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We won't because we can't. America has already invested enough, direct costs of over 1,500 American lives, approaching one-half trillion dollars. Indirect and long-term will be much greater. Bear in mind, we have invested $2 trillion in the war against terror, and the long-term costs are going to be between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. In Afghanistan, ultimately there will be a negotiated settlement with the least, worst guys, the Taliban and warlords, assorted tribal strongmen. It's already started. We cannot afford to continue this effort, not when crying needs are here in America to rebuild and renew our country. Last week, the American mayors got it right when they called this question and called for renewed investment here at home. The tragedy is that it's not ultimately going to make that much difference the longer we're there and the more we fight. Whether it's going to be 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, far in the future, it's not going to look that much different in terms of the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan. America needs to be engaged in this dangerous region. It needs to help Afghanistan. It needs to help the Pakistani people. It needs to be involved, both diplomatically and with development assistance. No longer do we need to have combat troops being a part of that mission.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 672, a bill that ends the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent and bipartisan commission whose main function is to improve and oversee elections in the U.S. This bill would transfer much of the EAC's responsibilities and funds to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), whose main priority is not election administration, but rather enforcing federal campaign laws. In a letter to the House Administration Committee, the FEC noted that they could ``contract with outside groups to fulfill aspects of the EAC's responsibilities.'' Facilitating free and fair elections is an inherently governmental function that should not be outsourced. The world's leading democracy should not affix a price on free and fair elections, but that is exactly what Congress does in this legislation. In effect, H.R. 672 says that preventing another crisis like the one we saw during the 2000 presidential election--where millions of Americans did not have their ballots counted due to failed voting machines--is too expensive and is not a priority. It is deeply ironic that just as Florida--the state responsible for the bulk of voter complications in 2000 that prompted Congress to pass the Help America Vote Act--signs into law onerous voter registration requirements, Congress is dismantling a bipartisan solution that helped ensure the effective administration of elections. This is a politicized bill that is well wide of the mark of true government reform. Simply repealing the EAC, like Republicans did with the Presidential Election Fund earlier this year, further undermines America's democracy and is a step in the wrong direction. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to take a moment to honor the incredible work of the Merlo Station High School Gay Straight Alliance. I had the opportunity to present these aspiring young citizens with the Portland Pride Youth Award and want to share with my colleagues how inspired I am by their dedication and accomplishments. After organizing just last year, the student-led force has been instrumental in addressing homophobia at Merlo Station High School, in the Beaverton School District and in the broader community. Among many other examples of outreach, the Gay Straight Alliance has organized student groups to march in last year's Pride Parade and AIDS Walk, created a 2-day all-school event for National Coming Out Day, and encouraged students to take ownership of their language by developing a ``No Bigoted Speech'' pledge. As we continue to debate many of the current GLBT-related pieces of legislation facing the 112th Congress, from the Student and Employee Non Discrimination Acts to the Safe Schools Improvement Act, I encourage my colleagues to remember these passionate students at Merlo Station High School. I am inspired by this on-the-ground student organizing and will continue championing legislation to advocate for full equality for everyone, regardless of their gender expression or sexual orientation, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in their agitation over the debt, our Republican friends have obstinately focused on program cuts alone, ignoring the harm to American families and the economic recovery. Their mindless slashing of the budget is costing jobs, while damaging communities. Yesterday's news about EPA cuts hurting local efforts at clean air and clean water is another example. More than a quarter of the deficit growth since 2001 resulted from the economic downturn which reduced tax revenues and increased programmatic spending. You spend more on unemployment when more people are unemployed. Our focus should be on job creation, which reduces unemployment costs and increases tax revenue. However, in their first 6 months in the majority, the Republicans have not passed any legislation to create jobs. The government's budget is often compared to a household budget, but every family knows that expenses are just one side of the equation. How many Americans, in tough times, take on second or even third jobs to increase their income because some expenses just can't be cut? As a Nation, we have the ability to increase our revenues, our income. An obvious place to look for additional income is closing tax loopholes and ending unnecessary subsidies, for example, for large oil companies would be one of the best places to start. Tax incentives are intended to help businesses create vital American jobs or develop technologies to improve our way of life. We as Democrats support those tax incentives that increase domestic manufacturing and other American businesses which create jobs and aid the economic recovery. These tax breaks promote our national economic priorities and put people back to work. But when a company's profits are $10.65 billion in just 3 months, such as ExxonMobil's were earlier this year, who can reasonably argue that that company needs expensive incentives to stay in business and make money? The 10 most egregious tax loopholes enjoyed by the large oil companies have helped the five largest companies make a combined profit of nearly $1 trillion over the last decade. The billions we spend every year on subsidies for the largest oil and gas companies are not moving us any closer to energy independence or a clean energy economy. The subsidies are not necessary and they're not useful for our economy. In 2010, nearly 60 percent of big oil companies' profits went to stock buybacks and dividends, not job creation. With oil produced at $11 a barrel, and sold for $100, tax breaks for oil companies are simply wasteful handouts, transferring money from working families to corporate stockholders. The difference over what was sold for an average barrel of oil, $72 average production price; average production cost, $11. No American family should be giving up their dinner to donate money to the millionaire next door. Removing these tax incentives will save taxpayers $40 billion over the next 5 years with only minimal impact in the profit, not in their operations. Cutting subsidies will not raise oil prices, which are set in a global market that this year will be in the range of $2 trillion to $3 trillion. Subsidies in the Tax Code, instead, should be directed toward emerging technologies like wind and solar. That's where the real jobs are. A University of Massachusetts study found that incentives for clean energy create two to four times more direct and indirect jobs compared to investments in oil and gas production. Another obvious place to cut is the ethanol tax credit. We don't need to subsidize something that industry is mandated to buy. We cannot ask children and seniors to bear the brunt of sacrifice while we are simply giving more money to large corporate interests that don't need it. We must make tough choices to ensure we leave a sound economy to the next generation, but we have to make those choices wisely so we leave a Nation that is competitive, prosperous, healthy, and educated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, which undercuts Clean Air Act standards and would allow large oil companies to circumvent air pollution regulations. I strongly believe that America needs to ensure our energy security and reduce our dependence on imported oil, but this bill is not the way to accomplish this goal. I support safe and responsible resource extraction and further developing our renewable energy capacity. But energy independence will not be secured by curtailing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to protect the nation's air quality standards. H.R. 2021 would severely limit the EPA's authority to protect human health and the environment. It would allow companies to waive permit reviews by the Environmental Review Board and would exempt them from requirements to use pollution control technologies, despite the ready availability of these technologies. Removing these controls would allow damaging pollutants to be released into the air, including nitrogen dioxide, particles, and sulfur dioxide, which would have significant health, environment, and climate impacts. The regulations to prevent this pollution are reasonable, commonsense provisions, yet this bill would undercut them, allowing widespread damage to human health and the environment for benefit of few wealthy companies. The health and environmental damage would be seen on all coasts where drilling takes place. According to some estimates, Shell's proposed 2010 drilling plan for the Arctic alone would have released as much particulate matter as 825,000 additional cars on the roads, traveling 12,000 miles each. This is only a single company's plan for a single drilling location; the full ramifications of this bill across all companies and all regions would be immense and disastrous. H.R. 2021 would also increase Federal court litigation, taking authority from local courts and giving it to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This replaces an established, inexpensive process for citizen challenges to government actions with a longer, more expensive review process by a court that may not be familiar with the local coastal and air quality conditions. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Federal policy should be more diligent than ever in pursuing safeguards and regulations that make sure that such costly, destructive events are made less frequent, rather than commonplace. Stripping out the environmental protections that we already have is irresponsible and it puts not only the Oregon coast, but communities from Alaska to California and from Maine to Florida at unnecessary risk. H.R. 2021 does nothing to secure a clean, safe path toward energy security. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I appreciate all my colleagues who represent the Oregon coast for bringing this forward. Now, my district may not actually touch the Oregon coast, but my constituents and I spend time there, value its beauty, the ecosystem, and the economic benefits it brings to the United States. The underlying bill could bring all of these at risk, allowing expedited drilling for offshore drilling, a process that is expedited for those who would drill, but a process that is much worse for citizens who may object. We need to continue to respect the wishes of Oregonians to keep oil rigs off our shores, prohibiting sources from obtaining permits to drill off the coast of Oregon. This amendment is an appropriate safeguard to protect our coastal environment and communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a vote that I made in the amendment series of H.R. 2112. During the roll call votes, I voted ``no'' on the Campbell amendment to prohibit funding from the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service account for being used for the purpose of destroying wild animals in order to protect livestock. I intended to support the amendment, as I firmly believe that the federal government should not support cruel, drastic measures of animal destruction. My record is strongly supportive of these types of provisions, and I regret that I missed another opportunity to state my strong disapproval to many of the trapping and poisoning methods employed in the destruction of wildlife. I wish to clearly state for the record that I supported the Campbell- DeFazio amendment and did not intend to vote against it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate his clarification. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment. It's insane that instead of changing our trade-distorting, unjustified subsidies, that we're instead going to subsidize the cotton industry both in the United States and in Brazil. It's certainly not the approach that we should be taking at a time when we're going to have to do business differently. We talk about people getting economic haircuts. What happens today is that 31 congressional districts get more than half of all the subsidies. They, not coincidentally, are districts that are concentrated on the Ag Committee and have a different perspective than the majority of the people in the House. I'm hopeful we can work our will with these amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I rise in support of the amendment from my good friend from Arizona. I appreciate his work over the years as we've tried to refocus attention and our resources in areas that are more productive for most American farmers and ranchers, for the taxpayer, and for the general economy. I just heard my good friend talk about his concern about who's going to feed America in the future. Well, the issue of having these lavish agricultural subsidies that are concentrated three-quarters in the top 10 producers, and they are not people who are in the main producing food, the fruits and vegetables that people care about that would add to nutrition. The people that are in my agricultural community in Oregon are basically shut out. 87% don't receive it. They are not getting support for some of the things that are market neutral in terms of marketing, in terms of research that's being slashed, in terms of commonsense support for meeting their environmental objectives to protect clean water and habitat. Being able to start tamping this down is essential. The AGI limitation, the one that I had on the floor last night that would limit the total amount of payment, these are things that there's never a good time to deal with them. I've been through three farm bill cycles. I've heard the body express itself in terms of instructions to the conferees and watched them disregard it when it came, for example, to limitation of payment. I would like to turn to my friend from Arizona to yield some time. Before I do, I just want to correct one misapprehension that is floating around about the amendment that we had on the floor last night that limited title 1 payments to $125,000 per entity. Now, some people are pretending that this would somehow affect disaster payments or crop insurance. No. It is just title 1 payments. It's very simple. It's set forth in the bill. Anybody can read it. And it's not going to deal, for example, with disaster payments. But on this note, I would like to yield to my good friend from Arizona, thanking him for his continued partnership and advocacy in this area.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to my good friend from Texas talk about deferring yet again to the Ag Committee, that somehow this payment goes to the Brazilian cotton industry and not to the cotton farmers, a distinction without a difference I would suggest. I rise in support of my colleague from Wisconsin in this proposal. I've been in this Congress having watched three farm bill reauthorizations, and each time we find that there is expression on the floor of this Chamber for actual reform. We've asked for limitations. We are told well we just don't--the floor doesn't understand; it's too complicated. Well, it is complicated and twisted because this is an effort to try, through the complexity, to layer efforts here that cheat the American consumer, that hurt the environment, and pose serious problems for international trade. And my friend from Wisconsin is correct. We were talking about this in the last farm bill, and we got our comeuppance, but instead of responding responsibly in reducing or eliminating the illegal cotton subsidies, we're shoving upwards of a half-billion dollars to the Brazilian cotton industry, and I'll be prepared to argue, it benefits cotton farmers. So we're subsidizing two countries because we fail to reach our responsibilities now. I sincerely think this is wrong. I think $147 million could go a long way towards helping the part of American agriculture that grows food that we categorize as specialty crops who are dramatically shortchanged. I would like to yield the remainder of my time, if I could, to my good friend from Wisconsin, the sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my friend from California (Mr. Farr) about cuts in this legislation. As I have been analyzing the legislation coming before us, Mr. Farr, it appears that the legislation, if approved in the form that is before us, would have a really devastating impact upon American farmers, families, and the environment. The legislation before us, as I understand it, cuts nearly $1 billion from the five main conservation programs, conservation programs that put money directly in the pockets of family farmers. Over the last 5 years, these programs have been so popular that the list of farmers who want to participate greatly outweighs the availability. Both the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program have twice as many applicants as they can serve. And the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program combined have over 1 million acres waiting to apply. These are not programs that are underutilized or ineffective. They appear to be widely popular and provide a direct benefit to America's farmers and ranchers. These would appear to be exactly the type of programs we should be supporting. They provide support for family farms and producers who are doing exactly the right thing, ensuring that we use precious tax dollars not only to support farmers and ranchers but to ensure clean water, clean air, and fertile productive soil. They are a blueprint for a better path forward, a farm bill that helps farmers add value and truly supports small- and mid-sized operations. I was wondering if you would care to comment on my concerns.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the sentiments of my good friend from California, as I appreciate his leadership on issues that relate to both agriculture and protecting the environment. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that Members will spend time looking at what this means to farmers and ranchers in their communities and hope that as the legislation works its way through Congress, we will be able to reverse these efforts. I yield back the balance of my time.