Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, H. Res. 303, providing for consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, and H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393 under a closed rule and H.R. 2685 under the customary modified open rule process, which allows any Member to offer an amendment to the bill so long as the amendment complies with the rules of the House. The only restriction is on the amount of time that will be allotted for debating each amendment. H.R. 2393 is an urgent and critical response to the World Trade Organization's ruling on May 18 of this year, which found country of origin labeling, or COOL, for muscle meat cuts to be in violation of the U.S. trade obligations with Canada and Mexico. H.R. 2393 will simply repeal the COOL meat cut provisions, making the U.S. compliant and prevent retaliation. Critics of H.R. 2393 will say we have more time, but in truth, we don't. This final ruling is the fourth time the WTO has ruled against the U.S. for various versions of COOL, and on this final appeal, the WTO has given both Canada and Mexico the authority to impose more than $3 billion in combined retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products within 60 days of the ruling. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are now down to just 37 days to respond before these tariffs are imposed. This could deal an enormous blow to U.S. companies and the workers they employ, just when our economy is beginning to rebound. There is also an argument floating around that this will prevent all labeling or that a ``Made in North America'' label will satisfy our trade obligations. A North American label will not necessarily satisfy our obligations and can in no way, no matter how fast we try, be negotiated in the remaining 37 days to prevent retaliation. Also, it is important to note that repealing mandatory COOL doesn't prevent voluntarily labeling, as some companies already do. Finally, it is worth noting that some critics claim that this will weaken inspections for meat imports. Nothing can be further from the truth. The United States Department of Agriculture has and will continue to provide the most rigorous, science-based import inspections, inspections of foreign plants which export to the United States. Whether or not the product has a mandatory country of origin label on it will not affect these rigorous inspections. This legislation is desperately needed. Our manufacturers, pork producers, grape growers, confectionary exporters, and ranchers have repeatedly asked Congress to ensure that we repeal the COOL provisions and bring the U.S. back into compliance with our WTO obligations fully and quickly. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2393 is important to ensure our economy is protected and that the U.S. plays by the rules we agreed to with two of our biggest trading partners, which are by far our largest export markets. This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which funds our Nation's national defense and provides the resources necessary to continue our essential military efforts abroad, as well as the funding for health and quality of life programs for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. Overall, the bill provides $578.6 billion in discretionary funding, $800 million more than the President's request and $24.4 billion above the fiscal year 2015 funding level. Within this amount, $88.4 billion is appropriated for our war efforts in the global war on terrorism. H.R. 2685 is an imperative measure that funds our critical national security programs and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in the armed services. An effective military, one that is well equipped and well trained, is indispensable to the common defense of our country and is in the best interest of all Americans. This bill includes vital funding for the U.S. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to instability abroad. This bill contains $133 billion to provide for 1.3 million Active- Duty troops and 820,000 National Guard and Reserve troops; $219 billion is included for operations and maintenance, which provides for the funding of readiness programs that prepare our troops for combat and peacetime missions. The Constitution charges the Congress to provide for our national defense, and this bill ensures we will fulfill that obligation. Our highest national priority should always be the protection of our country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, we must provide the resources necessary to fight America's enemies abroad. With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence of al Qaeda, the growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, instability throughout the Middle East, and Russian aggression in Ukraine, our military must be prepared for not only current threats, but for future ones as well. We also need to support those willing to fight alongside us, which is why H.R. 2685 includes critical support for our allies who are also facing this unprecedented instability due to the aggression of nation- states and terrorist organizations alike. This bill makes difficult budgetary choices without undermining the safety, security, and success of our servicemembers and their families. It uses every tax dollar responsible to give our Armed Forces the resources they need to stay prepared, safe, and in peak fighting form. Supporting the men and women of our armed services--who, day in and day out, risk their lives in the service of our country--is one of the most important functions that we perform as Members of Congress, and this responsibility should not be taken lightly. I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides for our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in uniform. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for consideration of two very critical pieces of legislation that will protect our economy, provide necessary funding for our servicemembers and the defense of our country, and I support its adoption. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, in my previous comments, I addressed this amendment, which is in order, and I would just submit those comments to be used for this particular amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce an amendment on an important topic that will undoubtedly have a growing impact not just on our Nation's agricultural sector, but on our economy as a whole. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, has enormous possibilities for our economy, whether it is providing cost-effective means to deliver packages, photographing housing for Realtors, broadcasting sports games, assisting law enforcement with tracking criminals, or providing mobile WiFi hubs for Internet access. However, one vastly underconsidered outcome for UAV technology is that it could potentially transform our Nation's agricultural sector. Ideas have been considered using UAVs to survey cropland, to determine property lines, or to help plan for planting, spraying, watering, or harvesting of crops; however, the potential applications are even greater. Depending on how this technology evolves, UAVs may be equipped with special cameras to determine if crops are dry and need extra water and where and how much should be applied. They may also be used to apply pesticides or fertilizers with precision to ensure that too little or too much isn't being used. And depending on their sophistication, someday, UAVs may even be used to harvest the food we grow. The potential applications don't just stop there, though. In my district last year, we experienced the worst forest fire in Washington State history, consuming hundreds of thousands of acres. In the future, first responders, the Forest Service, and other stakeholders may be able to use UAVs to monitor the spread of fire to get people out of harm's way or to better predict where to best apply water and fire retardants. They could even help with identifying dry or overgrown areas in advance to help stakeholders know where treatment is needed, which could prevent fires in the first place. Madam Chair, I appreciate the steps the FAA has taken in releasing draft rules regarding UAVs and that the FAA has been more agreeable in allowing testing of UAVs for commercial purposes. While I understand that safety and privacy are enormous concerns being considered by the FAA, it is also important that we do not fall behind other nations in utilizing this technology, which are currently developing and innovating in this industry more rapidly than we are here in the United States. Madam Chair, my amendment today is simple. It merely limits FAA's rulemaking on UAVs if the rules do not take into consideration agricultural applications of UAVs in the rulemaking process. I appreciate the work the FAA is doing on this matter, and I hope the final rules that are expected later this year generously allow for the safe testing and commercial use of UAVs, ensuring the amazing agricultural prospects for these technologies are well considered in the process. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, H. Res. 288, providing for the consideration of a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2289 under a structured rule and makes five amendments in order--two Democrat and two Republican, as well as one bipartisan amendment--allowing for a balanced debate on these important issues. H.R. 2289 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American economy and is long overdue for an enactment into law. This important legislation will reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority lapse in September of 2013. The House passed, with strong bipartisan support, a very similar version of this legislation on June 24 of last year. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up the House-passed bill despite its strong bipartisan support in the House, leading us to reconsider this legislation again today. After the financial crisis of 2008, almost everyone agreed that changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to protect our economy and prevent another crisis in the future. Like many of my colleagues, I have concerns with some of the reforms that were instituted in response to this financial calamity because they have put overly burdensome restrictions on our business communities. However, it is important to note that this legislation keeps intact the overarching reforms made in title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Every witness who appeared in front of the Agriculture Committee was supportive of the clearing, margining, and execution requirements that are the heart of title VII; yet, like every major comprehensive law-- and this was very comprehensive--there are always unintended consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 2289 does just that. For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank would likely argue the law's main purpose is to reduce systemic risk to the economy. However, I don't think anyone would argue that farmers, who are simply trying to lock in a good price for their corn or for their wheat, are a systemic risk to our economy. It is just as restaurant chains that are looking to make sure they have enough beef or pork or potatoes to sell to their patrons also do not pose a systemic risk. Utility companies that are seeking to ensure that they have enough power to meet the needs and demands of their customers did not cause the financial crisis. Unfortunately, though, the current law imposes rules that treat all of these entities as major risks to our economy, and it imposes overly burdensome capital and paperwork requirements on them. Mr. Speaker, critics may claim this bill undermines consumer protections. However, this could not be further from the truth. Title I of H.R. 2289 puts in place greater consumer protections, like requiring brokerage firms to notify investors before moving funds from one account to another in order to prevent abuses like those that occurred at MF Global prior to its bankruptcy. It would also require firms that become undercapitalized to immediately report to regulators and work with them to restore adequate capital and financial security. These title I provisions are commonsense reforms that will protect consumers. Title II would make reforms to the CFTC itself, such as strengthening the cost-benefit analysis the CFTC must perform when considering the impacts of its rules and appointing a chief economist to assist with compiling and analyzing financial data. Critics may claim that requiring cost-benefit analyses will open up the CFTC to lawsuits, which could be costly. However, such critics also ignore the endless cycle of the proposal and reproposals of rules that are rushed, poorly conceived, and unworkable. This work requires the CFTC to waste staff time and Commission funds to redraft rules or to provide workarounds for impacted parties. This requirement merely gives the CFTC a standard for writing good rules the first time that will benefit our economy and the users. Title II would also require the CFTC to take steps to invest in IT to protect sensitive market data against cyber attacks, a very real issue given the recent breaches we have seen at the IRS and at various national retailers. Most importantly, this section reauthorizes the CFTC until 2019, which has been operating without our authorization, to spend money for a year and a half. Title III now gets to the heart of what I mentioned earlier, providing relief to the end users or the farmers, the restaurants, the manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities that rely on a steady supply of commodities that have been caught up in the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank's reforms. These users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad weather, natural disasters, inflation, price shocks, and other unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve their customers. These entities inherently want to avoid risk and, thus, shouldn't be subjected to the same requirements as financial and investment entities. Mr. Speaker, title III of H.R. 2289 makes significant reforms to aid these end users, such as preventing utility companies from being inappropriately classified as ``financial entities'' and being treated like banks under the law. It exempts end users who are not otherwise regulated by the CFTC from having to keep records of every email, phone call, fax, or letter with regard to every trade, a huge recordkeeping burden. It would prevent nonbank swap dealers from having to hold more capital than banks do, which would put them at an unfair disadvantage in the market. Additionally, this section would allow end users operating in rarely traded markets not to have to disclose trade data, which can be a serious disadvantage if they must publicly show all of their trading partners what they are buying and selling. Title III would also require the CFTC to determine if the rules for foreign swaps are equivalent to U.S. rules and create a workable system of substituted compliance for market participants whose activity crosses multiple jurisdictions. This would ensure that businesses which trade internationally do not have to comply with two sets of divergent rules. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to remember about H.R. 2289 is that the farmer who grows the food that you eat for dinner did not cause the financial crisis, neither did the people you buy your electricity from or the people who provided the wood for your desk or the metal used in your car. I do not know of any reason we should continue to treat them as if they did, which is what the current law does, and it is what H.R. 2289 is seeking to correct. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the consideration of important legislation that will help grow our economy. I support its adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his many years of hard work on this very complicated issue. As you can see, he understands it well and understands the importance of passing this reauthorization legislation. I just want to thank him for his comments and hard work. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the esteemed former chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to make one comment in response to those of my colleague from Massachusetts in considering the underfunding of CFTC. In the last 5 years, through the reductions of Federal spending and the efforts that have been going on, I think anyone would be hard- pressed to find another agency that has received an almost 50 percent increase in its budget over that period of time. I will just point out that, certainly, they have received a lot of new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, but also a large increase in their available resources. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the good gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say I appreciate the good discussion here today over the past hour. People on both side of the aisles have made very good comments, very good points. As it relates to the last comment from Mr. McGovern that talked about chipping away at Dodd-Frank, everything we're doing around here is fine-tuning and improving what has been passed in Congresses-- legislation, laws on the books that need improvement--and I see that as what we are doing here today. So I appreciate very much the comments. And although we may have some differences, I believe that this rule and the underlying bill are very strong measures that are important to the future of our country. This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to debate and vote on the bill and numerous amendments, which I would note are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican Members of this Chamber. It reflects the balanced deliberation that this rule will provide. This rule will provide for a smooth and deliberative process for sending this bill over to the Senate for their consideration. H.R. 2289 is a solid and substantial measure that will address several critical issues that the CFTC and end users are facing. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see the complete deregulation of our financial services industry and our commodities and derivative markets. And I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts. However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are appropriate for our economy and as well for the users. These rules have to provide safeguards and prevent systemic risk but cannot catch our entire economy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. As we have discussed here today, the current rules place enormous paperwork and financial burdens on small businesses. And that cannot go unstated. Our small businesses, ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers all face these financial burdens. They take these small, risk-averse entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as large financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 2289 will differentiate and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic risk and should not have been lumped into these rules in the first place. The underlying bill would also make much-needed reforms in the CFTC to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense consumer protections. Overall, this is a strong rule that provides for consideration of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 288 and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, today, we present a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress, to recognize the distinguished service of the American Fighter Aces. One of the Fighter Aces being honored is Colonel Arthur Jeffrey, who was credited with shooting down 14 enemy aircraft during World War II. Colonel Jeffrey flew air cover missions during D-day. In December 1944, he was awarded the Silver Star for his ``courage, combat skills, and gallant leadership'' while thwarting an enemy mission. Colonel Jeffrey ended his tour as commander of the 434th Fighter Squadron. His service was recognized at the time with the Distinguished Flying Cross, with one oakleaf cluster, and the Air Medal, with 16 oakleaf clusters. Colonel Jeffrey passed away this April in Yakima, Washington, at the age of 95, regrettably before this honor was bestowed. Please join me in honoring the memory of Colonel Arthur Jeffrey, a remarkable American, for his outstanding service defending our Nation.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I share the gentleman from Colorado's opinion that the issue of immigration reform is huge, that it is one of the biggest issues facing this country today. I agree that we need to give it adequate debate and time and consideration; although, today is not the day. Mr. Speaker, we recently heard from colleagues on the other side of the aisle that combining multiple bills in a single rule can lead to fragmented and confusing debate. In an effort to refocus our debate today, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.