K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, we're here during--I would not call it historic, because historical things simply happen every once in a while--a shutdown of our Federal Government. It's come because our colleagues on the other side of the building have simply taken an attitude of ``it's my way or the highway.'' That's a wonderful way to look at life. It rarely works in the life you and I live in and that most of our colleagues and our constituents live in back home. If you look at the Constitution by which we govern this country, it was a series of compromises--big States, little States, unicameral, bicameral. Across the board, there were compromises within that document that have allowed us to try to prolong and preserve this wonderful experiment that we call the American Dream and self- governance. This ``my way or the highway'' attitude that the leadership of the Senate has taken is calling that into question. The statements made over the last several days by the folks who support the leader in the Senate must make them feel really good. But to those of us on the receiving end of those comments, it is insulting to be treated this way. It is insulting to have every opportunity we've put over there to try to reach a compromise on this issue to have it simply dismissed out of hand, not taken up on its merits but simply looked at and said: Never mind. It's the lower body over there. We'll treat these folks like children. Their ideas are unworthy of consideration and unworthy of debate. Let's just put them on the table with all the other hundreds of bills that this House has passed over the last 2 years and 8 months to try to move this country into a better position to move it along. JFK said, ``Let us never negotiate out of fear.'' We agree with that. But he also said, ``Let us not fear to negotiate.'' Why is Harry Reid fearing the negotiations? We've got our conferees ready to go. They've been named this morning--all good men and women. And the simple question is: Mr. Reid, where are your conferees? Why are you afraid of getting into a room with House Republicans and House Democrats--if they'll ever appoint their conferees--and work this issue out? Why are you fearing that option? You're fearing it because you know that the American people are behind House Republicans in this effort to rein this in. The core of this issue is the Affordable Care Act. It is without question that this country is on an unsustainable fiscal track. We cannot afford the promises we've already made to each other over the next 75 years. Our grandchildren are at risk for not being able to self-govern because of the spending plans that we've got in place right now. The Affordable Care Act adds a new, third entitlement to this mix. It also is unsustainable. So why would we want to continue this process in the face of the threats that we already have with respect to the spending plans that are now in place for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid? They will bankrupt this country soon. We've got hard choices to make with health care. There is infinite demand for health care, unquestionably, and there are finite resources. That requires a reconciliation. At the core of the Affordable Care Act is: Who does that reconciliation? Should it be government? Should it be 15 bureaucrats in a room, nobody knows who they are, that are deciding what that care should look like? Or, should it be patients and caregivers making some of the most difficult decisions we will ever make in life to decide on health care issues? My money is on the folks in the fight. My money is on the families and the caregivers. They can make far better decisions in this difficult reconciliation process than anything that could be done here in Washington, D.C. At its core, that's the fight--who makes your health care decisions at the end of the day, and how can this country afford the promises we've already made, which this President has said over and over he will not negotiate with respect to Medicare and Social Security. Where are his plans? Where are Harry Reid's plans for those two entitlements? And now they've taken that same mantra with respect the Affordable Care Act. They're refusing to negotiate anything about that. It's unseemly. It's un-American. And, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are demanding that we fix this and that we stop this shutdown that's unnecessary, but they also demand that the Senate come to the table with their conferees and let's begin the process of working that out. It is unseemly, as I said, for the Senate to continue to dismiss out of hand every attempt. Quite frankly, those of us on the House Republican side are getting criticized for having to look like we're negotiating with ourselves, finding time and time again we're trying to find some middle ground that the Senate could, in fact, come to work with us; and this ``my way or the highway'' attitude the leadership has taken is beneath the dignity of this body.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, as a gun owner and lifetime member of the NRA, I support the Second Amendment and every individual's right to keep and bear arms. But today, that right is threatened by the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I am outraged by the administration's intention to sign this treaty--a treaty that directly attacks our Second Amendment rights through subversion and bureaucratic tricks. How does the treaty do so, you ask? I'll name two . . . First, this treaty is purposely ambiguous. It binds the United States to a treaty that has yet to be fully written. That means that only after signing will the treaty's fine points be written. Why are we signing onto a treaty when we don't know what's in it? How many times have the American people endured thousands of regulations written into a law only after it has been signed by the administration? Second, and most offensive, is the treaty's encouragement to signing governments to collect the identities of the ultimate owners of imported firearms. This treaty appears to give the administration the cover it needs to start a gun registry--a gun registry that I'm sure they will claim is harmless. For those and other reasons, I am disturbed by the consequences this treaty could have on America's Second Amendment rights. And many of my constituents back home in Texas share this same concern. No government--be it foreign or domestic--should be allowed to infringe on our constitutional Second Amendment rights. I remain strongly opposed to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I will continue to work with my like-minded colleagues in the Senate to reject this or any future treaties that would seek to barter away our Second Amendment rights and outsource American sovereignty.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. Today, the House of Representatives has the opportunity to pass a bill that makes the greatest reforms to SNAP since the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform act, and results in less spending. Opposing this bill is a vote for the status quo in Washington. Our goal throughout this process has not been to take millions of people off of food stamps but to restore the integrity of the program and ensure this safety net is preserved for the families most in need. The arguments you will hear from the other side of the aisle are just theatrics. If you listen to them out of context, you would assume that we're destroying or eliminating the entire SNAP program. But we are not talking about eliminating the SNAP program. We're committed to finding solutions that work with the resources we actually have. Today, we have an opportunity to modernize the nutrition program, to close loopholes, and most importantly, keep the safety net intact for qualified American families who depend on this assistance every day. This bill rids nutrition policy of provisions that have weakened the system. It will seek to limit the public assistance program to those who qualify and close the loopholes that have been used to game the system. It will also create a more efficient and effective program for the Americans who really need it. This bill gives people the tools to become self-sufficient, find work, and make a better life for themselves and their children. The Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act is a good bill that reforms nutrition policy and returns accountability to the food stamp program. And yes, Madam Speaker, it does reduce spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support this good work.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Marine Corps Sergeant Robert Emmett O'Malley of Goldthwaite, Texas. Sergeant O'Malley was a squad leader with Company I, 3rd Marines, during the Vietnam War, and was awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme bravery in action on August 18, 1965. Sergeant O'Malley's unit came under heavy enemy fire while conducting an amphibious assault on an enemy position during Operation Starlite. Disregarding his own safety, Sergeant O'Malley charged forward and killed eight enemy soldiers. Then he directed his men to fire on the enemy, with deadly effect. He also rallied his squad to help an adjacent Marine unit suffering heavy casualties. Although he was wounded, Sergeant O'Malley refused to allow medics to treat him, insisting instead on helping evacuate wounded marines. After being wounded a third time, Sergeant O'Malley refused to yield the engagement until all of his men were accounted for. It is for his valor, leadership, and courageous efforts on behalf of fellow marines that I am proud to represent Sergeant Robert Emmett O'Malley of the 11th Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of Mr. and Mrs. Marcine and Nita Lou Webb of San Angelo, Texas. Over the past three decades, Mr. and Mrs. Webb have made it their mission to visit all 50 state capitol buildings throughout the United States. Their 35-year journey culminated in June when they traveled to Augusta, Maine. Their adventure took them from the dusty West Texas plains to every corner of this nation. It has given them the opportunity to witness firsthand the vast beauty found throughout our country and experience the people, traditions, and history that make America great. The most endearing part of their story is that they made this journey together, side by side, with the help and support of their family and friends. The latest visit to Augusta was an early wedding anniversary gift from their loving children Becky, Penny, Dennis, and Marcie to help them celebrate their 65th anniversary together on August 28, an astonishing feat on its own. Their devotion over the years is a testimony to their love of our county, to each other, and their family. As they gather with family and friends to celebrate this occasion, may they be blessed by their wisdom and learn from their experiences. I congratulate them on their accomplishing their long sought-after goal and their many years together. I wish them many more.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this week in the House, we are voting on pieces of legislation that will roll back the Obama administration's overreach. We term this effort Stop Government Abuse Week. Our message to the administration is quite simple: no more wasted tax dollars, no more abuse of power by Federal agencies. The Federal Government must be accountable to the American people, not unelected bureaucrats. Right now, a senior Federal employee can be placed under investigation for serious misconduct, yet the Federal Government isn't allowed to put that person on leave without pay, meaning they get an extended paid vacation. That's the case with IRS official Lois Lerner, who took the Fifth Amendment and testified before Congress. She's now on paid leave while Congress continues the agency's misconduct investigation. The Employee Accountability Act, introduced by my friend Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania, will address this issue. It will allow agencies to place employees on unpaid leave when they are under investigation for serious offenses. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work the House is doing this week on behalf of the American people. We are sending a very strong message to the Obama administration: enough is enough.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my good friend from Texas. I also want to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Section 526 was added to the 2007 energy bill as a last-minute add- on, with no hearings, without any information about it whatsoever, and it is beyond misguided. It may sound good on paper, but it is totally unenforceable. No one in their right mind has a clue what the life-cycle greenhouse gases are for any of the fuels that anybody buys. And, quite frankly, as we blend crude oil sources at a refinery to run through the refinery on a most efficient basis, there is absolutely no way to separate out the gasoline jet fuel diesel that comes from that refining that would be required if--let's assume for sake of this conversation we actually get the Keystone pipeline done, some of that oil from Canada starts flowing south into our refineries. There is absolutely no way anyone can certify which gasoline coming out is related to those sources versus some others. So this is misguided. It's unworkable and extreme. I would prefer that we exempt the entire all of government from section 526, but that's obviously beyond the scope of tonight's legislation. I want to thank my friends--Mr. Flores, Mr. Hensarling, and Mr. Gingrey--for, again, posing the striking or exempting of the Department of Defense from the misguided requirements in section 526, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the Democrats told the American people that Congress had to pass the ObamaCare act so that we could learn what was in it. Well, 3 years later, we are just now learning what really is in the law and how it will cost American jobs and limit their health care choices. It is no surprise to me that the administration has delayed the implementation of the employer mandate. Just as every honest observer said it would, ObamaCare is costing Americans full-time jobs and hourly wages as employers prepare to comply with the new mandates spawned by this law. Later today, the House of Representatives will vote to delay imposing ObamaCare's crushing burdens on employers. For once, we agree with the President--this law cannot be implemented without significantly harming our economy. We will also go one step further and delay these same burdens from falling on the backs of individuals as well. I don't believe it is appropriate to protect one half of America from ObamaCare but not the other half. We will give American families the same reprieve from this law that the Obama administration is promising to employers. The two votes we are taking today are important steps toward repeal. All of the regulations required by this law are still not written. With every day that passes, a new regulation is announced, revealing just a little more of what this bill will actually do. Each rule and regulation mandates new costs for employers, more restrictions for the insureds, and ultimately hikes the cost of health insurance for American families. This law is not ready to be implemented. There are too many questions, too many inconsistencies, and too many complications. Despite the promises of the Democrat leadership, the fact is that we still do not know what's in it. Mr. Speaker, my constituents want to see this law repealed. I think it is bad policy, bad politics, and terrible for health care in America. I have supported every effort to end this law, and I will continue to support these efforts as long as I am in office. Fundamentally, I do not believe that this law will ever be ready; so next year, if the President has not worked with us to delay it or to replace it, I will be back to argue for additional delays on both the individual mandate and employer mandate. I will continue to demand that Congress and the President repeal this law and replace it with one that puts patients first, that allows new and innovative paths for care and coverage, and that does not put the government between patients and their doctors.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this farm bill. The farm bill before us was fully debated by this body and subjected to more than 100 amendments just a couple of weeks ago. More than 60 of those amendments were adopted. This body has had ample opportunity to work its will, and now it's time to vote for passage. Today, those of us who came to town to cut spending, reduce the deficit, reduce the size of government, and make reforms have a real opportunity to walk the walk. This farm bill does all of those things. This bill is going to save taxpayers $19.3 billion, it's going to repeal or consolidate more than 100 programs at USDA, and it's going to repeal the direct payment program, something that many of my farmers and ranchers back home do not really want to give up. The farm bill also does a couple of other things. It is being considered separately on its own merits, as many in this body have called for, and it replaces antiquated permanent law so that we don't face things, like the dairy cliff, at the end of the year anymore. The bill before us reforms not just the politics of the farm bill, but the process as well. This farm bill has earned our support, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment. One particular troubling issue is the predefinition of ``actively engaged in farming.'' My good colleague should know that this will alter, fundamentally, the normal operations on a farm. Take two quick examples, a brother and a sister. The sister runs the tractors, plants the crops, harvests the crops; the brother, on the other hand, does all the bookkeeping, files tax returns, works with FSA, arranges the loans at the bank. He would no longer be actively engaged in farming. That makes no sense whatsoever. The broader spread one, though, is the generational shift in farming operations. As parents and grandparents age, they take less of a physical role in farming operations and hand that off to the younger generation--the folks that my good colleague was speaking to. This redefinition would say that as they age out and quit doing the actual physical labor, and yet their wisdom and knowledge and vast experience has added to the success of those farming operations, they would no longer be considered actively engaged in farming and would be excluded from the program itself. This is wrongheaded. It adds additional regulatory burdens on family farms across this country in an unnecessary manner and doesn't get to what my good colleague is trying to get to. I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote ``no'' on the Fortenberry amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 23 to the end that the amendment stand rejected in accordance with the previous voice vote thereon.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Sugar users and folks who buy it by the ton are not going broke. If you look at Hershey, which is one of the main proponents for changing this policy, in 2007 they made $217 million--I don't begrudge them that; I wish I were a shareholder. In 2012, they made $660 million--a threefold increase in their prices. Their own annual report says that sugar costs went from 54 cents a pound to 37 cents a pound, and that that would not be reflected in their prices because of the way they manage the rest of their business. If the sugar buyers were actually going broke, then that would be reflected in one of the largest sugar users, which is Hershey. This is about protecting American producers, men and women who get up every morning to fight the fight for American agriculture and grow sugar, process sugar, so that you and I can pick it up off a table free and walk out of a restaurant with it. The current policy works. Often, if it's not broke, don't fix it. This also fits in the category that if a fellow is down, you don't kick him. The sugar industry is down right now because of a 52 percent decrease in the price of sugar. Let's don't kick them while they're down. This current policy works. Let's don't fix it, because it's not broken. And the $38 million pro-rated over 10 years is a bargain. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we all have deep concerns about hunger in America and hunger around the world, and every effort to abate that is worthy; however, I must oppose this amendment. One of our efforts at the committee, over the last several years, is to look for duplicative processes, duplicative programs to eliminate. Reducing this duplication in these agencies has been a major priority for the committee over the last 2\1/2\ years, and we've held audits for implementing agencies, field hearings across the countryside and hearings here in Washington to receive stakeholder input on the effectiveness and, more importantly, the inefficiencies of programs within our jurisdiction. While I support providing access to healthy foods for low-income communities, I believe that our base bill makes significant strides in addressing these concerns, both the inefficiencies as well as the effectiveness of the programs. What is even more concerning than authorizing this duplicative program is the offset that is used to pay for more government redundancy. Exports are vital to the U.S. agricultural economy. Nearly one-third of our agricultural sales come from exports. In the last 25 years, the Market Access Program has proven to be highly successful in helping to boost U.S. agricultural exports, expanding jobs and increasing rural income. The amount of money sought is about $20 million a year over the 5- year program for a total of $100 million. We must look at programs that are effective on a big enough scale to have a really big impact; and this is a program that, while perhaps impactful on a few very small communities and small issues, it will not affect hunger widely across this country. I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I respectfully disagree with my good colleagues, both of whom are sincere in their efforts. I believe this amendment is wrong-headed. If it had been enacted last year, it would have placed $928 million in cash assistance into largely unstable regions of the world and with no clear guidelines on how the money should be spent or tracked. We saw a rampant waste of cash in Iraq when we tried to use cash to further our means there. It's a whole lot harder to steal a sack of rice with ``USA'' written on the side of it than it is to steal a sack of currency. This program is meant to help folks in need of food. There is no better producer and no cheaper producer than the American farmer. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Ag Committee has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to craft these reforms to the food stamp program that this amendment would strip out totally. The argument that somehow we can food stamp our way into a great economy is a bit false in the sense that it doesn't reflect that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we are putting into the program. The families that the previous speaker referenced will still remain on food stamps. If you qualify on the income and asset side, you'll stay on the program. If you make too much money to qualify directly for food stamps, those are the folks who will be getting out as part of the $20 billion that we'll save in this program. It's a 2 percent reduction. I'm hard pressed to understand how we could have a near 5 percent reduction in the beneficiaries by cutting only 2 percent of the spending. We'll trim it from $80 billion a year to $78 billion a year. Much of the conversation you'll hear and justification for not going along with these reforms sounds like we're gutting and destroying the entire program. We are not. These are modest reforms that we believe are appropriate at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the McGovern amendment and support what the bipartisan Committee on Agriculture did.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I've got great respect for the author of the amendment, and he knows that, but I do stand in opposition to the amendment. The checkoff programs on a generic basis are very successful. The industry itself votes on them and comes together to decide how they're used in the promotion of the products. I respectfully disagree with my good colleague, but I have to oppose this amendment. We handled this in committee, and it passed in committee. We gave it a good scrubbing there. So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. I would reiterate my opposition. This is a good investment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is $1 million since 1996, not $50 million. He's exaggerating again. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this amendment in the en bloc section. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment that will require the Secretary of State to submit a report on water sharing with Mexico as defined by the 1944 Water Treaty. This amendment has bipartisan support, and I would like to thank my good colleague Mr. Vela from Texas for supporting this important legislation. This amendment addresses Mexico's failure to uphold its water obligations to the United States by seeking to increase accountability in water management by requiring the State Department to provide regular reports to Congress outlining the management of the Rio Grande system. The Rio Grande plays an important role in meeting the water needs of businesses and families all across west and south Texas. This is a result of the 1944 water treaty between the United States and Mexico which outlines the obligations of both parties in the lower Rio Grande. Both the U.S. and Mexico are obligated to jointly manage and derive benefit from the water resources located across the binational border. Mexico is required to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water on average each year over a 5-year term. Currently, Mexico has failed to meet this obligation as they owe nearly half a million acre-feet to the United States. It's not a secret that Texas has suffered a terrible drought and there is really no relief in sight. Mexico needs to begin fulfilling its obligations. Our farming and ranching communities depend on it. Again, I appreciate the chairman for including it in the en bloc amendment and obviously support passage of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I started to go down one path, but the disdain with which my good colleague from Florida insulted the folks in this industry is unacceptable. I rise in opposition. I wish he would get his facts correct. The total appropriation, actual money spent since '96 is $1 million. He has confused authorizations with appropriations. So if he will go and check his records, the $50 million he blasted out over and over and over was just simply incorrect. That is not the money that was spent. Sheep shearing is an important issue with respect to growing the wool industry in this country. It is about jobs. Sheep shearing is hard work, and we're trying to figure out ways to make that happen. This board is housed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Marketing Service. It's a board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. It's composed of seven members--four active sheep growers, two finance and management members, and then two folks out of the USDA to make a total of nine. The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center provides small grant projects to assist in the improvement of the sheep industry and the expansion of markets. Throughout the farm bill, we have attempted over and over and over again to promote production agriculture and the jobs associated with it. While sheep shearing may not be particularly exotic and folks from Florida may think it is beneath them, the folks from west Texas take a whole different view of that. The author of the amendment has disparaged these grants saying that they are for razors and combs for beginning shearers. That's how you do it, Mr. Chairman. The truth is that a shortage of properly trained wool harvesting professionals, this shortage is critical and one of the difficulties for producers who wish to participate in the production of wool. A major barrier for beginning sheep shearing professionals is an initial cost of purchasing the equipment. These small grants assist to create these jobs in an industry that needs our help. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this attack on a very important piece of the safety net that production agriculture relies upon. There are two possible outcomes for this amendment, and both are bad. The first is that we're going to put the government back in the business of delivering crop insurance. We tried that. It didn't work. Government employees don't act nearly as responsibly as the private sector does. That comes with a cost, but the farmers like it. They get response from these folks that is appropriate. Secondly, we would go back to the possibility of days when we spent billions of dollars on unbudgeted, ad hoc disaster relief. And that's the least efficient way that we ought to go about this. And that's what this amendment does. It is bad for taxpayers. In spite of my colleagues' comments, this amendment won't save money. It will end up costing us untold billions in this ad hoc disaster spending that's the norm in that regard. I know that the Environmental Working Group and other radical environment groups want to run our farmers and ranchers out of business. I get that. This amendment would certainly help them accomplish their goal. So if your aim today is to stick the American taxpayer with billions of dollars to pay for ad hoc disaster bills, this is your kind of amendment. If you want to give the extreme environmentalist group, the crowd that gave us Meatless Mondays, a win in their effort to ruin American farming and ranching families, this will get right at it. So I have farmers and ranchers struggling with 3 years of successive and severe drought. This is a slap in the face to those farmers and ranchers in west Texas and across this country. This amendment is not good, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.