Kurt Schrader

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the thirty- seventh anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. Congress enacted the TRA as a way to increase trade and investment opportunities with Taiwan while also strengthening regional security efforts. The TRA is the bedrock of our relationship with Taiwan and has served both countries well. Our friendship stretches back decades and remains as important as ever in these challenging times. Having recently visited, I can attest to how special and close our two countries are. Nationally, Taiwan is our ninth largest trading partner. They are also our seventh largest source of international students; a group that contributed almost a billion dollars to the U.S. economy in 2014 alone. The impact to my home state Oregon is even larger. Taiwan is Oregon's sixth largest export market with over $1 billion in Oregon products annually. These numbers show how vital Taiwan is to the United States, especially given the importance of the Asia-Pacific region. As that region of the world continues to grow, it is vital that we maintain our key relationships. The Congressional Taiwan Caucus recognizes the importance of this relationship and the need to continue to build upon the strong ties between our two countries. I am proud to join with over 200 members of the House as a part of that caucus. This bipartisan support is a testament to the strength of our friendship with Taiwan. These facts help to show the importance of the U.S.-Taiwan friendship. I join with my colleagues to renew our support between the government and people of Taiwan. Let us always remember the strong bond between us and move towards another thirty-seven years of success.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the Oregon Air National Guard. The Oregon Air National Guard was born on April 18, 1941, when Oregon's own Major G. Robert Dodson sent the celebrated message, ``We've got people, we've got a place, and we're ready!'' to the National Guard Bureau and was allowed to activate the 123rd Observation Squadron. For the next seventy-five years the Citizen Airmen of the Oregon Air National Guard have been serving Oregon and the Nation with distinction. During World War II, the 123rd Observation Squadron patrolled the skies of the Pacific Northwest protecting our nation. Several years later Oregon Air National Guard pilots continued to serve our nation by flying over one thousand combat missions during the Korean War. As the Cold War took shape, the Citizen Airmen of the Oregon Air National Guard stood up to protect the Pacific Northwest. Since 1958, they have been on air defense alert twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week patrolling the skies from northern California to the Canadian border. On September 11, 2001, the citizen-airmen of the Oregon Air National Guard were among the first in the air. After ensuring the security of our homeland they again went overseas to provide vital support to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Seventy-five years after their founding the Oregon Air National Guard continues to protect the skies of the Pacific Northwest, support our Nation's mission abroad, and stand ready to provide disaster relief for the great state Oregon and our Nation. Today the Oregon Air National Guard is made up of 142nd Fighter Wing in Portland, the 173rd Fighter Wing in Klamath Falls, and the Joint Force Headquarters in Salem, Oregon. Oregonians are proud of the hallowed legacy of our citizen airmen and airwomen. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the Oregon Air National Guard and honoring those who have and continue to serve their country and the great state of Oregon.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, though I support efforts to clarify rules as they apply to consumers and small business, this bill, as currently constructed, creates an inequity in the industry by creating an exception for many menu labeling rules for certain establishments, particularly chain pizza shops and other restaurants that could potentially serve a majority of their customers via remote ordering. While I have nothing against these businesses, I believe all restaurants should be treated equally. My amendment merely ensures that the rules are applied fairly by removing this exemption from the bill. Under the terms of the bill, most chain restaurants will be required to list calories on menus at the point of purchase. However, pizza chains and other establishments where most orders could be placed off- site, will gain an exemption from this rule. They will not be required to list calories in their brick-and-mortar locations, even when orders are placed on-site. This is an inequitable and unfair exemption. While the vast majority of large chain restaurants will be required to list the calories in their physical location, these folks will not. In addition to being unfair to businesses, it is also confusing to the consumers, whom we are actually trying to protect with this current bill. They will see calorie information when they place an order at one restaurant but not necessarily at their local pizza shop. Opponents of the FDA rule argue the provision is necessary because pizza restaurants offer many menu items and will not be able to comply with the rule. This is simply not true. The FDA rule already allows some variation within menu labels and serving parameters. Generally, I agree that one size does not fit all when it comes to rulemaking for businesses, but not in this case. The National Restaurant Association has indicated that most of their members are preparing to comply with the menu labeling rules. By all means, the FDA should assist these restaurants with proper guidance, but specifying an exemption to one segment of the industry is unfair, inequitable, and confusing to the consumer. You might hear opponents of my amendment argue the exemption allows pizza chains to post calorie information online rather than in their physical locations. For these Members, I have good news. If my amendment is adopted, these restaurants will still be able to offer this information online. In fact, many restaurants already do so, and those businesses should be commended for their transparency. Mr. Chairman, we don't need to add unfair and confusing exemptions to the difficult menu labeling rule we already have. The FDA has indicated a willingness to work with all affected to provide guidance and clarity to make compliance easier. This is what our businesses want and need. I ask my colleagues to join me in assuring fairness for businesses and clarity for consumers. Please reject this bill--it is an unfair loophole--and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's discussion. I want to assure him and everyone out there that the online ordering is still allowed under my amendment so that those people who have technology can do so. But for seniors and some of our less-advantaged folks at home, they can go to the store and also get that information, which is not allowed under this current bill, but would be allowed under my amendment. To the argument that there are too many combinations to be accounted for, the FDA does allow for flexibility in listing calories for menu items so they are accessible in different restaurant types. Pizza shops in locations like New York and Montgomery County, Maryland, already are complying with rules very similar to these. Other restaurants have indicated a willingness to comply, including a national chain that sells coffee, doughnuts, and ice cream: Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin-Robbins. They serve 15,000 different ways of coffee, sandwiches 3,000 different ways, ice cream sundaes 80,000 different ways. They can comply under my amendment. Why can't everyone else? The NRA itself, the National Restaurant Association, says it is critical that all businesses that have made the strategic decision to sell restaurant food play by the same rules. Furthermore, they talk about that such provisions create inconsistent and erratic labeling by putting in these exemptions not only among restaurants, but among restaurants, food service operators, grocery stores, convenience stores, et cetera. My amendment removes this unfair exemption. Very simple. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in private enterprise. The same rules should apply to everybody. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, after drafting and passing a trillion- dollar deficit-busting tax and budget bill last month, my Republican colleagues now want to get some of that money back on the backs of middle- and low-income Americans. These are the very people that have been struggling to recover from the Great Recession. These families and small businesses that are having trouble staying afloat would now lose access to affordable health care. It is irresponsible. I don't get it. The Affordable Care Act gives millions a hand up, not a handout, in order to afford affordable health care. Families are put in the driver's seat in the health insurance market and are seeing good results. This is something we have been doing in Oregon for some time. Market- based principles and personal responsibility is actually the heart of the ACA. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why we would want to create greater uncertainty for small businesses, trying to do the right thing by their employees, by eliminating the small business tax credit, like my Republican colleagues want to do today. Rather than waste time on distractions like this, we should be coming together to build certainty around the basic American right of a shared-responsibility healthcare system.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. I thank the chairman. I want to applaud you and the ranking member for the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee for having this colloquy here tonight. I think it is really important for folks to understand the severity of the issue that is before us here. As my western colleague pointed out a moment ago, these wildfires are alive and well, unfortunately, and absolutely devastating, devastating at a level that we had never seen or expected before. These disasters, not just back east with Sandy and Katrina, but the wildfires that we see in New Mexico and in my home State of Oregon and neighboring State of Washington this summer, are absolutely catastrophic, and way above and beyond what we have seen in past decades. The firefighting situation has become untenable. The height of ridiculousness is to acknowledge the fact that firefighting costs have doubled over the last 15 years, on a regular basis, 8 out of 10 years, as was pointed out a moment ago, and not do anything about it. The wildfires don't go away when we put our heads in the sand. They continue to devastate. I would like to point out three, maybe four things I think are really important. We are talking about an omnibus bill here that everyone is arguing over. There are certain policy riders, I submit, that have nothing to do with the budget. There is some discussion about a fire funding fix, though, to get after this budgetary disaster that we have, now every year. Why not budget up front for this so that the resources can be allocated immediately? Secondly, not devastate the Forest Service budget, because if you take it out of the Forest Service budget, even temporarily, then the Forest Service can't do its land management work, which gets rid of the hazardous fuel, gets rid of the diseased trees, takes care of the pests to prevent the next wave of forest fires. This is very simple, folks. This is very simple. The funding fix also talks about working in a collaborative way to build the collaborative relationships that have eluded us so far for our forestry problems. The fix talks about working collaboratively on the NEPA process with folks, make sure it is done correctly, but in a way that the Forest Service can manage and get it done quickly. It talks about set-asides for small areas that could be categorically excluded where there is already collaborative work being done on the urban-rural interface and, actually, some areas to promote wildlife habitat. I mean, this is the type of thing that actually gets at what both the environmental community and the forest community need to have. One last big point I think that gets ignored a lot in this discussion is the economic loss that occurs as a result of these forest fires. We could have a lot more money for tax resources if we got after these fires early on. Right now, I have timber communities in my State where over 50 percent of the land is Federal forest lands that go up in smoke, that they could otherwise be harvesting or reducing that fuel load by thinning, to promote jobs, economic development, and tax revenues. I think a small investment in this budget to offset larger costs later on, and adequately fight these fires, to protect rural America, is critical. Right now, rural America is not getting its fair share. There is a lot of talk about 9/11 and making sure our first responders get the health care that they need and deserve for stepping in in a disaster situation in New York City. Where is the stepping in to help my firefighters out west? These men and women go into toxic situations, life-threatening situations, and they get no respect just because we are out west. As the ranking member pointed out, and the chairman pointed out, these are devastating disasters, just as bad as tornados, just as bad as hurricanes. Where is the fairness to my western colleagues in getting their issue taken care of? This devastates the communities. These rural communities are poor already. With these fires rampaging across the landscape, they get poorer quicker. There is no Intel or Microsoft setting up in the middle of nowhere in the rural parts of my State and my district. They depend on natural resources, the good use of natural resources, resources that can be used for carbon sequestration by not having these fires. I find it amazing that, in a budgetary discussion, we are trying to save money, not just in the short term, but in the long term, that we are having trouble getting this fire funding fix that is bipartisan. Even the White House is behind it. We have an opportunity to get this done for a small amount of money that will be paid back over the next few years in spades. I think it is a shame that we can't get this thing done just instantaneous. I hope the discussion tonight opens the eyes of some folks about the discrimination that is going on against rural America, particularly out west. And I really, really, want to thank the ranking member and the chairman, who I have worked with closely over the years, a true friend, a friend of rural and forested America, for bringing this to our attention. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to state my opposition to the $800 billion of unpaid tax extenders now being discussed in Congress. It is incomprehensible to me that Republicans and Democrats would entertain adding $800 billion to the $19 trillion debt that we already have, a debt that our children and grandchildren will end up having to pay. Just as every well-meaning program should be paid for in these tough times, so should every tax incentive. This is especially true when those incentives are being expanded beyond their original purpose and made permanent. What we really need, colleagues, is having a more comprehensive discussion on tax policy and entitlement reform. We probably have too many tax breaks. We should broaden the tax base, frankly, and reduce our tax load. We must deal seriously with the long-term debt and deficits. Adding this additional burden to the out-of-control debt we already have is absolutely destructive to our country's future. As one of the former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, the greatest threat to our Nation is not from abroad, but our national debt.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I am actually pleased here to join my colleague, Representative Reichert from Washington, in offering this important amendment today. I want to assure Members here on the floor that this in no way is picking sides. You want to talk about labor disputes? These are labor management disputes. The problem we have on the West Coast is that this particular dispute last year actually crippled severely the United States economy not just on the West Coast, but into the Midwest and beyond. We can't have this happen again. We cannot have this happen again. We have to remain competitive in this global economy. We have to figure out a different way to resolve these disputes so that what is a legitimate labor management negotiation does not affect businesses, farmers, workers, and thousands of jobs across this country. In my State, Terminal 6, the port of Portland's container terminal, is no longer operational. Why? Because the carriers don't want to call on this port because it is too unreliable. They don't know if they are going to have ships to anchor up for weeks on end waiting to upload. Instead, they will just call on other ports north or south of us. This is directly an impact for the businesses and farmers.

Mr. SCHRADER. The Reichert amendment simply allows us to have a GAO study to talk about what possible outcomes could be different than what we endured last year. The goal here is just simply to get some facts, get some information, protect American jobs, protect American workers.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, as a veterinarian and an organic farmer, having spent 6 years in the House Ag Committee, including 2 as ranking member of the Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research Subcommittee, I have studied GMOs very closely, and it is something I take very seriously. In fact, back in the eighties, I helped write our State organic standards in Oregon. For thousands of years, humans have grown or bred plants and animals to choose the most desirable traits for breeding the next generations in an effort to help them to be able to resist pests, disease, and increase yields. Through biotechnology, we have been able to increase productivity and efficiency while reducing the number of inputs, like water and pesticides, resulting in higher crop yields. Higher crop yields per acre allow for better land management and the conservation of marginal lands. GMOs, in combination with good agricultural practices, also improve soil quality and reduce pollution by allowing farmers to till, work the ground, less often or not at all, reducing soil erosion and reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture. If you are worried about climate change and want good science, you should be for this bill. GM crops flourish in challenging environments without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment that play an important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world. This is precisely why I am very concerned about the demonization of biotechnology and the rejection by many of the supporting science behind it. Food labeling should be about health and safety. The reason we have USDA and FDA is to provide uniform protection to consumers across this country, to avoid a patchwork of politically motivated, nonscientific, mythological regulations by activists, not scientists. And right to know is protected in this bill. We have heard from many on polls. I would like to cite one. The Pew Research Center conducted a poll recently and found that nearly 90 percent--yes, 90 percent--of the scientific community found genetically engineered food is safe and poses no health threat to the environment or humans. H.R. 1599 provides a uniform standard for non-GMO products through a USDA-administered program and ensures national uniformity for non-GE claims, providing consistency in the marketplace while ensuring consumer confidence in the integrity of the label.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about H.R. 2467 and take a little time to tell you what this bill really is and what it is not. Contrary to a statement put out by the President and some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, this is not a complete abrogation of environmental protections or NEPA process on our Federal lands. This is a streamlined process for a very, very small portion of Federal forest land subject to catastrophic natural disasters and already subject to expensive collaborative, resource advisory committee, or wildfire protection plans--a very narrow subset of our Federal forests. For the folks back East, I would like to remind them that, out West, forest land occupies a great chunk of our States. Over half of my State of Oregon is Federal forestland. Most of that is managed by the Forest Service or the BLM. Three-fourths of my State is distinctly rural, little access to this postrecession recovery. Frankly, indeed, these guys were in a recovery for the last 20, 30 years, when timber harvesting came to a screaming halt under our so-called forest plans. Their recovery, their prosperity, is irrevocably entwined with smarter, healthier forest policy that promotes resiliency, which this bill does, and sustainability, which this bill does. This bill is narrowly crafted to build upon the growing trust, hopefully, between old environmental and timber adversaries by showing what can be done with good forest policy in a collaborative framework on our Federal forestlands. Currently, dead, diseased, wildfire-subjected Federal forestland contributes millions of tons of carbon annually to our atmosphere. Rotting trees are carbon polluters. Burning forests are carbon polluters. Our forests need to be cleaned up and made healthy again. If you care at all about climate change or the health of our Federal forests or, hopefully, the health of rural communities around America, you should be for this narrowly crafted bill to collaboratively build a sustainable forest policy. I would like to reiterate that this bill only pertains to a narrow set of projects and lands, including areas affected by or likely to be affected by these natural disasters. This only deals with lands subject to collaborative processes or under these federally sanctioned resource advisory committees already in place or covered by community wildfire protection plans. In other words, these are areas that already have had extensive proactive management discussions on these lands with community partners across the environmental and timber resource spectrum. This is exactly where a streamlined NEPA process should be placed. Contrary to information you have received, this is not eliminating environmental impact statements. It does permit a small exclusion of 5,000 to 15,000 acres for a narrow type of project. The Forest Service is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars on NEPA compliance, the single biggest factor in limiting the amount of work the agency can get done on the ground. It also has an innovative approach to restoring forests after a wildfire. No permanent roads are allowed to be built, current stream buffers stay in place unless the regional forester has a compelling reason to change them, and reforestation is required with an eye to creating more successional habitat, something our environmental community has wanted for a long time. You can't accelerate the process here. Where are you going to do it? Didn't we accelerate the process a little after Sandy or Katrina? You know, some of our colleagues, some of my citizens, several of my constituents out west are feeling that there is a lack of fairness in our disaster policy. It is common practice for radical groups to file a litany of alleged grievances on any forest project that is suggested, mostly just to drag out the process and delay good forest policy they disagree with, at great taxpayer expense. Most of these claims are purely procedural. We must reform this legal gotcha game by forcing these groups to focus on legitimate, substantive claims of impropriety that they feel they can win on. That is fair, and that is what this bonding proposal actually does. Folks, for people in rural Oregon and rural America, they are being left behind. The timber economy was the major economy for these forested regions for decades. They are not seeing large companies, high-tech manufacturing moving into their remote areas. These are communities that have depended on our renewable natural resources for their livelihood. Our forests are a catastrophe waiting to happen. They are much less diverse than they used to be. This drought is about the worst it has been out west in a long, long time. Our forests are tinderboxes waiting to burst aflame. Let's begin to work collaboratively. Give local communities the tools they need and have to deal with and prevent these catastrophes, frankly, learn how to work together again to build healthier forests and healthier rural communities.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. COOL was perhaps a worthwhile effort at the time but, unfortunately, has outlived its usefulness and its appropriateness. Country of origin labeling, well intended, has started to cause irreparable harm to producers in the Pacific Northwest. Beef and hog producers are facing serious problems trying to work things through the packing plant. We have international trade now; we have a global market. That needs to be recognized. It is harming not just Canada and Mexico, but Pacific Northwest producers. That point has to be driven home. We are now facing huge retaliatory tariffs in the Pacific Northwest. Some of our premier crops are wine, cherries, apples, cheese, potatoes. COOL may have been well intended, but we lost four times at the WTO. We tried to fix it. We worked on it in the farm bill last go-around last year--couldn't get it done. We are facing these retaliatory tariffs right now. Let's repeal it, and let's move on.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am proud to be here today to support real bipartisan compromise to finally repeal and replace this flawed SGR formula. I would like to give my congratulations to Congressman Burgess and, frankly, former Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz also worked very hard for many years to make this thing a reality. This long-term solution is going to bring stability to Medicare, so seniors will actually be able to continue to see their doctors. Meanwhile, the bill also allows physicians to focus on value and quality of care rather than quantity of care and extends, of course, the vital CHIP program aiding so many children in this country. Now, though I would prefer to see this bill completely paid for, like many others in this Chamber, I recognize the nature of compromise means you don't get everything you want, whether you are a House Member or a Senate Member. I am glad, however, that it has been pointed out that at least part of the cost of this bill is covered by implementing crucial reforms to Medicare that will help improve its solvency for future generations, certainly compared to our current policy. I congratulate my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle for coming together on this agreement. It is long overdue and will greatly improve our system. I hope we vote for this bill.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very, very much. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for hosting this particular Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for America to realize that we all don't hate one another. We actually get along pretty well on a personal level, and there are those of us on both sides of the aisle who want to work together to solve our country's problems. You have heard a little bit about that already. I think, at this time, more than ever, it is important for Congress to come together. The little debate we had last week or a week and a half ago on the Department of Homeland Security, I think, drives that point home. Oftentimes, within families, there are disagreements. Whether it is a Republican family or a Democratic family, we are not going to agree on all of the issues all of the time. That doesn't make one side wrong and the other side right. What it does mean is there is an honest difference of opinion. In the way our forefathers set the system up, we are supposed to work through that. There are checks and balances. No one party, no one Chamber, no one individual is supposed to have ultimate veto over the rights of everyday, Main Street Americans. What we in the Blue Dog Coalition try to do is to bridge those differences, to provide a forum to find ways to agree, not to disagree with the other team. As for the Homeland Security bill, whatever you think about some of the attachments to the bill or about some of the actions by the President of the United States, it is important to fund Homeland Security more now than ever. With the stuff that has gone on overseas that could possibly threaten our own shores, it makes it imperative that we work together. I am actually proud, despite the sausage-making look of it in the media and, perhaps, to a lot of Americans, that there were Republicans and Democrats who came together to solve that problem. We will live to fight another day on immigration reform and on some of the other issues which we have genuine, legitimate differences of opinion on, but it should not be lost on the American people that it was Democrats and Republicans coming together to solve a very basic problem that our Congress and Nation are charged to solve, which is to provide for the security of the American people. The Blue Dogs have been doing this for years. You heard of our inception after the 1994 elections, when the Blue Dogs felt we were getting choked. We were regular Southern Democrats, if you will, at that time. It has branched out, like Mr. Costa has indicated, to include the whole country now. Yellow Dog Democrats were getting ``choked blue'' by their rather liberal leadership that they felt did not respect or, frankly, represent some of their interests, so out of that came the Blue Dogs. The body has grown and decreased in numbers with every election cycle. There has been a consistent drumbeat, however, for folks like us in moderate districts, not just on the Democratic side, but on the Republican side. We actually have quarterly meetings with a Republican group called the Tuesday Group, where we try and get together and share ideas about things we can work together on--not in opposition to but work together on. Boy, I wish leadership would work in that same vein. We would be a lot better off.

Mr. SCHRADER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SCHRADER. In reclaiming my time, I totally agree with the gentleman from California. I think, sometimes, there is that bubble we operate under here in Washington, D.C., and we forget that the people back home, frankly, are sometimes not watching C-SPAN. They are busy trying to put food on their tables, seeing if their kids can get great educations. Frankly, in recent times, they are just trying to keep their bloody jobs. So I think it is important for us to relate to the people who are paying our salaries. This is their Chamber--this is their building--not a bubble of Washington, D.C., types. It is important for us to sit down and represent what they are talking about. When I went home in this last election cycle and, frankly, in every election cycle, the big issue for Americans in the Congressional Fifth District in the great State of Oregon--the Willamette Valley-central Oregon coast--is not any one issue. It is: ``Will you please work together.'' This is complicated stuff--some of these bills are pretty darned complicated--but I think everyday Americans understand. ``Okay. That is why I hired you. Work it out. Figure it out.'' To their credit, they don't give me a lot of room for excuses. ``Well, gee. I am not in the majority. I don't control it.'' ``Kurt, I elected you. I want you to figure out a way of how to work with folks.'' We can do that. The farm bill in the last Congress was a classic example of how we actually worked together, Republicans and Democrats. You could not tell a Democrat or a Republican based on what they were talking about, because they were representing different districts, different geographies around this country, lobbying hard for their farming interests or nutritional programs that they felt passionately about. That is the way Congress is supposed to work. That is what the Blue Dog Coalition is all about--building those relationships. If you have noticed in the 114th Congress, in the first 2 months, while DHS, the Affordable Care Act, and sometimes choice or abortion have gotten a lot of the headlines from the media, I would urge you to look at the votes for the big, important bills that have come forward. There are a number of bills that leadership--and I give the Republican leadership credit for this--brought forward that moderate Democrats had voted for in past Congresses or had expressed interest in, and they got overwhelming and sometimes significant Democrat support. That is not talked about by the media, folks. You have got to realize that there are many opportunities like that that go below the radar screen. It may not be the sexiest topic in the world, but it is stuff like making sure the Affordable Care Act works, making sure that small businesses are able to function properly, making sure that the Dodd-Frank financial reform actually is workable and respects the interests of the different members of the community out there, even the Keystone vote. I mean, we have to be thoughtful about it, and Democrats and Republicans need to work together and find areas they can agree on. We have tried to do that time and again. It is the heartbeat of the Blue Dog Coalition. Basically, what we are standing for, as you have heard, is fiscal reform and fiscal responsibility. It has been a hallmark of the Blue Dogs over the last 20 years. We are generally a government efficiency organization. We believe government is not evil, but it could sure work a heck of a lot better. Every one of the folks out there in America understands that some government rule is making a problem for them, and it shouldn't have to happen. We as Blue Dogs try and cut through that government regulation. We are also business friendly. Yes, Democrats can be business friendly, believe it or not. They are called ``Blue Dogs.'' There is another group called New Democrats. There is another group growing outside this that wants to include all Americans, which is called No Labels. Most Blue Dogs are, frankly, members of No Labels. There is another group that works together, Democrats and Republicans. Yes, folks. There are a lot of different people in this Congress who are very interested in trying to work together to make your Congress work and deal with your lunch bucket issues that mean the most to you--job creation, educational reform, infrastructure--as was alluded to. These are values, I think, every American holds dear, and those are the issues we should be working on. Senator Lieberman said at one point that it is kind of ironic that everyone is interested in bipartisanship, but if you don't agree with somebody 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with them any of the time. The real world is: life is complicated, and you are going to have times when you agree and times when you disagree. One of the basic axioms of politics is: you don't have enemies or friends; you have allies and adversaries at the end of the day because issues change over time, and you will find that the ebb and flow of interests will conflate with party, geography--all of those issues. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to trying to bring people together across this country--Republicans and Democrats, business interests, individuals--trying to make your government more responsible and more efficient with electoral reform, congressional reform, getting back in this great, august Chamber to regular order--to where your interests are represented through the committees, through the elected Representatives you have. That is what is important here, and that binds Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates, like us. That is the hallmark of the Blue Dog Coalition. I won't belabor the point. I thank the gentleman for bringing us to the floor here. I think it is important for America to be a little inspired that there are people who care about this country, who cut through the partisan politics and even go against our respective leaderships to try and solve the problems you want us to solve. I think, at the end of the day, that is where America is. To get back to a greatness, which was alluded to before, it is going to require more members of the Blue Dog Coalition and of the Tuesday Group on the other side of the aisle to be elected to Congress and hope America gets mad as hell and starts to hold their Members accountable for working together and making America great again.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, on many fronts, H.R. 527 does a very good job strengthening requirements that agencies review regulations that are already on the books, with stronger analyses about how these regulations impact small businesses. Ensuring that agencies are operated in an efficient manner has never been so important. This means that efforts must be made to limit programs that tend to duplicate one another. Now, unfortunately, section 10 of this legislation creates a duplicative program, using resources twice at the SBA. It further grows the convoluted aspects of the Federal Government's regulatory processes. To approve a size standard has been the province of the SBA administrative office. It requires expertise and analytical resources, which the Office of Advocacy will now have to acquire. This will duplicate similar resources maintained by the SBA's office of size standards. It seems very redundant to create another office to do the same thing that a current office already does. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy for President Reagan testified in 2011 before the Small Business Committee that Advocacy should not take on the new responsibilities outlined in this very legislation. My amendment is simple. It would strike this duplicative section and keep all the regulatory flexibility reforms that are in the bill. Eliminating this provision from the bill will not have any effect on the size standard process or on small businesses. It will be business as usual. What it does do is saves taxpayers from footing the bill for two identical size standard offices. For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, which is a vote to reduce waste and unnecessary duplication at the SBA. Reducing government complexity should be a bipartisan effort. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has had 4 years to bring an immigration bill--any immigration bill--to a vote and yet has failed to do so. Oregon businesses, labor, farmers, farmworkers, faith-based groups, and human rights advocates have all patiently waited for comprehensive immigration reform. So have millions of Americans and people all across this Nation as they wait for their legal status to catch up with the realities of their lives as good and productive members of our society. Without comprehensive reforms, Oregon businesses are in peril and Oregon families live in constant fear. Many of us in the House have offered a bipartisan bill similar to the Senate's with better border enforcement provisions, but hard-line, rightwing extreme provisions have hamstrung any action on these bills. As a result of the intolerable congressional inaction, the President has issued executive orders to protect folks who have immigrated to this country and been productive members of society and the economy. This executive action merely prioritizes deportations for individuals who harm or pose a threat to our society. My hope had been that this action would spur comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, House Republicans now play games with the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations and put us all at risk. It is time to act.

Mr. SCHRADER

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am very surprised to have to be here today. I thought after millions of Americans said loud and clear this past November that they wanted us to work together and find common ground, we could put divisive bills like this behind us. When I speak to voters in my district in Oregon, none of them ask me to raise taxes on the middle class which, effectively, this bill does. None of them have asked me to let health insurance plans discriminate against women or those with preexisting conditions, something this bill does. I don't know any seniors that want to pay more for prescription drugs, something that will happen if this bill becomes law. Nobody I speak with wants the most vulnerable children to go without health insurance which will happen if this bill goes into effect, ending bipartisan support for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Nobody I know wants to see the deficit grow, to pass on more debt to our future generations, or reduce the solvency of the Medicare trust fund--again, something that will happen if this bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, I don't think my constituents are alone in this. Americans want us to stop wasting time and come together and put this partisan nonsense behind us. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and get our priorities in line.