Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Congressional Natural Gas Caucus convened a congressional field hearing on Friday at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. I am proud to have joined Representatives Gene Green, Tom Reed, and Tom Marino to hear from State and local officials and leaders on the economic impacts of natural gas production in the Marcellus shale region. The hearing offered an insightful look at the benefits of the 3,551 gas-producing wells in Pennsylvania. One of those benefits is jobs. Today, 30,752 people in Pennsylvania are employed in the natural gas industry. This is a 164 percent increase since 2009. The average salary is $82,643. Additionally, 214,302 are employed in ancillary industries, a 7.9 percent increase since 2009. In just two rural northern Pennsylvania counties, testimony revealed an increase of 4,832 jobs and 226 businesses between 2006 and 2012. Most importantly, 80 percent of those jobs are now filled by local workers. Mr. Speaker, the responsible production of natural gas is producing energy security and an economic impact that surpasses all expectations.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is the 31st anniversary of the creation of the National Council for Independent Living. NCIL is the leading organization for persons with disability. Thirty-two years ago, I began my career and life passion serving individuals who were living with life-changing disabilities. I'm proud to be one of the 214 cosponsors of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act. The ABLE Act will ease the financial strains for individuals with disabilities. I'm also proud to be the author of the Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 2013. This legislation removes the current barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from independently creating a special needs trust. What we're talking about is individual independence and making sure that public policy is a tool, not a barrier, in achieving this goal. Once again, I want to thank the National Council for Independent Living for their leadership and service. Working with advocates such as the National Council for Independent Living, we will accomplish independence, dignity, and success for individuals living with disabilities.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it's been a tough week for American consumers. Yesterday, it was reported that under the Federal Bureau of Land Management's new proposed onshore hydraulic fracturing regulations, businesses will suffer--as will the rate of production in developing our Nation's plentiful natural gas. Yes, a clean and affordable resource. Reuters News reports: The Obama administration hopes the rules on public lands will serve as a model for State oversight of drilling on private lands. This plan is no secret. U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said as much in her testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee in July. Make no mistake: these Federal regulations are being developed as a model to be used across the country. The development of our Nation's domestic energy resources has been one of the few bright spots in a struggling economy. It's very clear how and why this era of growth and innovation came to be. Take a look at the production rates on State and private lands versus Federal lands and you will see why. Production is up on the former and way down on the latter. Unfortunately, the administration wants to close this gap by putting the Federal Government in control and imposing costly new mandates everywhere that production is taking place. It's bad for business, Mr. Speaker. What's worse, it's bad for consumers by making the cost of heating their homes that much more expensive. And it doesn't stop with natural gas. Coal is also in the administration's crosshairs. Only with coal, the White House has a hair trigger, a scope, and a silencer. Case in point: a sweeping new coal regulation quietly being put forward by the administration known as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Yesterday, Joseph Pizarchik, Director of the Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement at the U.S. Department of the Interior, testified before the House Natural Resources Committee on the new rule. The Interior Department has largely stonewalled the Committee's investigation into the rewrite of the coal regulation and failed to comply with multiple subpoenas. Similar to the Director's testimony, the entire rulemaking process for this new regulation has lacked transparency. What we do know is that the administration has failed to even consider the new rule's economic impact on local economies, such as those in my home State of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the conduct of OSM is emblematic of the Obama administration's complete disregard for the health of our economy. As many as 220,000 jobs are at risk in the Appalachia region alone as a consequence of the proposed rule. Thousands more are at stake nationally. DOI regulations require that OSM collaborate ``to the fullest extent possible'' with the States developing this rule. DOI regulations also require that OSM collaborate with States ``at the earliest possible time'' so that all stakeholders can evaluate the rule and consider possible alternatives. Yesterday, when asked whether or not States have been provided with information regarding the new rule and related changes, the OSM Director stated he does not believe that there have been any contacts during the last year with the impacted States. When further pressed as to whether his office had made any contact with States and other cooperating agencies, the Director stated that he was unaware of any such communications. Mr. Speaker, this White House will stop at no end to assault the fossil fuels industry along with the millions of jobs it supports and the low energy costs that it provides. Mr. Speaker, protecting the environment and developing our abundant natural resources, such as coal and natural gas, are not mutually exclusive, but this is not something that this administration would like to admit. This week, the administration continued to move ahead with policies that will cost more jobs and further harm family budgets through higher electricity rates. This week, the administration continued to grossly underestimate the cumulative impact of their regulatory actions. And this week was another tough week for the American consumer.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, the Washington Times reported, and I quote: The leading Federal research effort into the controversial drilling method known as fracking has turned up no evidence so far linking the process to water contamination, a connection continually drawn by many environmentalist critics, along with some Democrats in Congress. The report continues, stating: The Department of Energy research being conducted at a Marcellus shale natural gas well in western Pennsylvania thus far has shown that chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing practice have stayed thousands of feet below drinking water supplies. Additionally, in April, a determination made by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found that fracking is not to blame for high methane levels in drinking water in communities in northern Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the United States oil and gas producers would pay an additional $345 million a year, or an average of $96,913 per well, under the United States Bureau of Land Management's amended proposed Federal onshore hydraulic fracturing regulations. According to the report, the amended proposal's estimated cost still exceeds the $100 million threshold requiring an economic assessment by the Bureau of Land Management. Now, while changes the Department of the Interior made following comments from producers, environmental organizations and other stakeholders included elimination of the requirement to regulate well maintenance, much more consideration must be given to these burdensome regulations. Local scientists and regulators know the geology where natural gas extraction occurs. They know the industry. They know how to balance good science and manage the industry's expansion--without thwarting innovation, growth, and affordable, reliable energy. Local economies, including many in my district, are booming due to the natural gas industry. The model that is making this possible is based on stringent regulations at the State level, not the heavy hand of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, later this week, the bipartisan Congressional Natural Gas Caucus will convene a field hearing, entitled, ``The Economic Impacts of Shale Production.'' This will be done at Penn College in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The caucus will receive testimony from local officials and community leaders concerning the economic impacts of natural gas production. We must promote best practices, sound science, and do our very best as communities to manage this rapid growth and promote this industry that is offering prosperity to so many Americans.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last week a group of more than 80 Members of the House and Senate unveiled a package of legislative reforms to make government more efficient, effective, and less wasteful. The bipartisan group is called ``No Labels''--encompassing Members of Congress who have committed to meet on a regular basis to find common ground among political parties on a range of policy issues. I reach across the aisle on every single piece of legislation I introduce. It's the only way to actually get something done in this town. But this group is looking to create a larger dialogue among Members of Congress from different parties with different philosophies. It's a constructive group that is looking to advance solutions on a nonpartisan basis. The package of nine bills they introduced last week might not solve all the Nation's problems, but they do demonstrate how common ground can be achieved, how Democrats and Republicans can work together as problem-solvers. The more Members that we can bring together to work across the aisle on a consistent basis helps us to build trust and ultimately a legislative branch that functions a whole lot better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, last week, the House passed the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, or FARRM Act. Overall, the agriculture programs will save $20 billion. This package of farm bill programs will create a more cost-effective and market-oriented framework of agriculture policies and ensure that Americans continue to have a safe and affordable food supply. This bill did not include title IV of the committee-passed legislation, which contained significant reforms to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or food stamps, totaling an additional $20 billion in savings. Contrary to popular belief, the current SNAP program was not affected by passage of last week's FARRM Act. The American people deserve a transparent and open debate over agriculture and nutrition programs, both of which are in dire need of reform, which is why the House will be considering reforms to SNAP in the coming weeks. We have an opportunity to achieve a better and more efficient farm bill here, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and Senate on a final package so that we can enact those commonsense reforms into law.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in May of 2012, the House Ways and Means Committee released a report that expounds upon one of the most problematic provisions included in ObamaCare, the mandate on employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to offer ``affordable'' and government-approved health insurance plans to their workers beginning in 2014. Employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not offer government-approved coverage must pay $2,000 in fines annually per employee. After 2014, the fine would be indexed to the average per capita premium for health insurance, as determined by the Health and Human Services Secretary. Even if employers do offer government-approved health insurance coverage, they would still be fined if Health and Human Services deems the plan ``unaffordable'' and at least one full-time employee purchases a qualified health plan through an exchange and receives a taxpayer- funded subsidy for their coverage. Seventy-one Fortune 100 companies that responded to the Ways and Means Committee survey included in the 2012 report estimate that they could save $28.6 billion in 2014 by eliminating health insurance coverage for their 5.9 million employees and opting to pay the $2,000 annual fine per employee. This would impact more than 10.2 million employees and dependents on employer-based plans. Under these estimates, from 2014 through 2023, the employers surveyed could save an estimated $422.4 billion. The employer mandate provides a perverse incentive for companies to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working and are embraced by the employees themselves. This is a stark contrast from the promises made by President Obama, suggesting ``First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.'' Mr. Speaker, as we are seeing, that is simply not true. But furthermore, the employer mandate will serve to drive up the costs of ObamaCare as more and more people become a part of the exchanges. Even Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, in an interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius this past January, posed the question as to whether or not the employee mandate would cause employers to ``dump'' employees into the exchanges until it ``becomes sort of a back door of government--not a takeover necessarily, but of a government responsibility for the health care, and then suddenly, obviously then, we're Sweden.'' Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote to legitimize the administration's delay of the employer mandate for 1 year. While I support this delay, we must continue to focus efforts on repealing and replacing ObamaCare so that we can begin to reduce the escalating health care costs and the restrictions on access, the attacks on quality innovation in this country and the turnover of health care from a personal decision to the government.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House will debate H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. This bill will delay enforcement of the ObamaCare mandate--employers with 50 full-time employees who do not offer government-approved coverage must pay a $2,000 fine annually for an employee. On July 2, the administration announced a delay. And while their authority to unilaterally change the law is questionable, the mandate remains a problem. Earlier today, an employer in Pennsylvania told me that in order to address compliance costs, the employer would opt to close 1 day a week. This is not rhetoric. In May of 2012, 71 Fortune 100 companies responded to a House Ways and Means survey. They estimated savings up to $28.6 billion in 2014 by eliminating coverage for their 5.9 million employees, paying the $2,000 annual fine. This would impact more than 10.2 million employees and dependents. It appears that the administration has begun to understand that the employer mandate provides a perverse incentive for companies to drop their employees from health plans that are otherwise working. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2667.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, passage of a new farm bill is long overdue. The House Agriculture Committee has spent 4 years, held dozens of hearings and countless hours preparing for this farm bill. Plain and simple, the committee-passed bill, which was recently considered by this body, made substantial reforms to agriculture programs. It eliminated more than 100 programs and reformed outdated, costly, and ineffective programs. The committee-passed bill would have saved taxpayers over $40 billion, with half of the savings coming out of the farm programs. The bill before us today repeals the outdated farm programs that we don't need and we can't afford. Direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program, and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) are all repealed in this bill. We get rid of many costly subsidy programs and replace them with free market-modeled risk mismanagement. For the sake of our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and also for all citizens who rely on the safest, most affordable and highest quality food, I rise in support of this legislation and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform my colleagues of an important piece of bipartisan legislation that will be introduced later today called the All Children Are Equal Act, or ACE Act. The ACE Act corrects a gross inequity in the way funding formulas are calculated under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I was designed to improve the achievement of disadvantaged children. In order to allocate more funding per title I student to local education agencies, or LEAs, with higher concentrations of poverty, the funding formula weighs the count of eligible students in an LEA. However, the formulas have the perverse effect of directing funds away from all smaller school districts, both urban and rural, towards larger LEAs, regardless of the poverty rate. The ACE Act would gradually decrease the effects of number weighting and return the focus to areas with the highest concentration of poverty, as originally intended under the law. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have Representative Slaughter of New York join me in introducing this important bill. I encourage my colleagues to join us in correcting this fundamental injustice.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated, ``If we do nothing, student loan rates go to 6.8 percent,'' as reported by Politico. In case the Leader forgot, interest rates doubled to 6.8 percent last week. The House acted to prevent it. The Senate did not. Today, The Washington Post Editorial Board writes: The Senate is set to consider on Wednesday the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act in what could be the Chamber's only reaction to the recent doubling of a low student loan interest rate . . . lawmakers should reject this pathetic nonsolution. The editorial continues: With the President and the House in near alignment on the student loan issue, the Senate has no excuse to fail. Mr. Obama should press Democrats hard and work with Republicans to strike a deal, not to vote for dead-end policy. Unfortunately, rather than solve problems, the Senate is wasting the American people's time and moving forward with another dead-end policy, what today's Post refers to as another ``campaign gimmick.'' The people deserve better. Our students deserve better in this country. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has no excuse.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last week while the American people were preparing to celebrate the 237th birthday of the Nation, the Obama administration announced, via a blog post, that it will provide an additional year before the employer reporting requirements and the employer shared responsibility requirements of ObamaCare take effect. There are few issues as personal and significant in the lives of individuals and families as health and well-being, which is why the irony of reminding Americans that government now controls their health care during the week we celebrate our country's independence did not go unnoticed. Despite efforts to quietly buy time and obfuscate responsibility for this fatally designed health care law, most Americans rightfully view this delay as an admission of failure. Mr. Speaker, the businesses that provide the jobs and the source of health care coverage for most Americans were not surprised by this announcement. Most are well aware that this law was thoughtlessly rammed through Congress in the middle of the night with a litany of technology flaws and other blatant failures. Unfortunately, employers have been struggling with high health care costs since before the law passed. Given the combined pressure of new taxes and regulations, businesses are hurting exponentially worse now that the law's provisions have begun to take effect. These new government mandates incentivize businesses to reduce their workforce to under 50 full-time equivalency employees. To avoid financial penalties, the incentive under ObamaCare is to reduce individual hours to avoid these mandates. Employees now face the redefinition of ``full-time'' down to just 35 hours per week. This law denies opportunities for growth that could and should be available and promoted. This is fundamentally counter to what a vibrant and robust American economy demands. Fewer jobs and reduced individual hours are not good for individuals, for families, for businesses, or for our economy. Nonetheless, employees and employers alike are experiencing the consequences of ``Obama-sizing'' both businesses and jobs. By the time the law is fully implemented in 2023, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the President's health care law will still leave 30 million Americans uninsured. At the same time, the law is massively driving up the cost of care for both employers and employees. In fact, 17 of the Nation's largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under this law. The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, Mr. Speaker: ObamaCare is not only unaffordable, but it also fails to address access to care in any meaningful way. In the process, we're damaging everything that is good and effective about the current system. To boot, we're undermining growth and stalling our economic recovery. Effectively, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that the White House used a blog post to announce the employer mandate change reveals just how desperate the administration is to cover up the flaws of this fatally flawed bill. Unfortunately, this is not something the White House was willing to admit until after the midterm election.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. In the time since this body last adjourned, storms and extreme weather have ravaged large portions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The resulting floods have devastated communities across the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, including--but quite possibly not limited to--Venango, Jefferson, Clearfield, Clinton, and Centre Counties, all of which I represent. In the days following these events, I joined with State and local officials and others in the impacted communities to help those coping with loss to assess the damage and to begin the process of rebuilding. Though so many individuals and families are faced with loss and despair, it was truly inspiring to witness these communities come together to help fellow neighbors in need. I take the floor today to offer my thoughts and prayers to those affected by these events, especially to those grieving over the loss of a loved one. These individuals need our support and the care of a helping hand more than ever.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Emily Whitehead is a young girl from Philipsburg, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Emily wants to be a veterinarian when she grows up. She loves writing and her dog, Lucy. At the age of 5, Emily was diagnosed with leukemia. She worked through multiple different treatments. Unfortunately, in 2011, she relapsed. Emily received chemotherapy for months and was scheduled for a bone marrow transplant in 2012, but she relapsed just 2 weeks before the transplant date. Unable to get back into remission, doctors told Emily's parents there were no options left. The family decided to take a chance. They traveled across the State to enroll her in a clinical trial at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Emily would be the first child in the world to receive modified trained cells, or T-cells, to fight her cancer. By May of 2012, Emily was in remission. The treatment had worked. I want to thank Emily and her family for making it to Capitol Hill last week. This body needed to hear her story and about the medical research and innovation that saved Emily's life.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations as DuBois Area Middle School earns redesignation status as a Pennsylvania ``School to Watch.'' This is quite an achievement, and I highly commend the administrators, teachers, and students for their efforts. It is my understanding that DuBois Area Middle School is one of only three middle schools that has been redesignated a second time, after originally earning this designation in 2007 and again in 2010. These selections by State educational leaders exemplify DuBois Area Middle School's outstanding responsiveness to the needs and interests of its students in helping them achieve their greatest potential. Furthermore, by working together to improve curriculum and foster continuous academic growth, DuBois Area Middle School leadership has gone the extra mile to ensure success. The example your success has set for other schools is an excellent one, and I hope it will be shared widely. Also, I encourage all people, students and adults, to continue to learn as it is probably the single most significant ingredient in leading a successful and fulfilling life.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago, the House passed H.R. 1911, a bill based on the President's 2014 budget request, which would provide a market-based interest rate for student loans. Editorial boards from across the country have lauded this bill and have called on the Senate to act on a similar proposal: USA Today stated: Rates on loans are now set by Washington, not markets. Obama and the House Republicans wisely call for a market solution. The Boston Globe stated: The solution President Obama and House Republicans have proposed would prevent what has become a frustrating annual standoff. The Los Angeles Times stated: Republicans are backing a long-term solution that's similar to one President Obama proposed . . . The Senate should pass its own version . . . then work out the differences with the House. With less than a week before student loan rates jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the Senate has failed to pass a bill that would address the issue. It's time for the Senate to come to the table.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's excessive regulatory actions have been taking their toll on the Nation's economy for some time now. Unfortunately, the President's new climate change plan announced today appears even more costly and contentious than his previous proposals, which were resoundingly rejected by his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. America needs a diverse supply of low-cost and abundant energy sources. Coal is, by far, the cheapest and most abundant source of energy. Protecting the environment and developing our abundant natural resources such as coal are not mutually exclusive, but that's not what the President would have us believe. The Obama administration continues to grossly underestimate the cumulative impact of its regulatory actions, and this new plan to unilaterally impose new energy regulations will cost more jobs and further harm family budgets through higher electricity prices.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, politics trumped good government today in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Members of this body demonstrated a failure to lead by voting down the farm bill. The Federal Government currently operates a costly maze of duplicative and outdated agriculture spending programs. The farm bill crafted by the House reflected a fiscally responsible plan that would have ended the abuses of food stamps, ended wasteful agriculture spending programs and, achieved a level of efficiency for existing programs that should be replicated in all areas of government. The farm bill would have eliminated automatic enrollment in food stamps and prevented fraudulent benefit payments by requiring States to verify eligibility for the program. The farm bill would have ended the economically disruptive policies that have worked to further destabilize our dairy markets. The bill transitioned to a more free market approach that's better for farmers and taxpayers alike. In the absence of this comprehensive reform package, the overspending and taxpayer waste will now continue.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me restate again, I recognize there's two different programs. There is one program that was created in 2008 that nongovernmental programs can participate in. There's not capacity within the Forest Legacy Program, Mr. Chairman, to add nongovernmental programs in. It is specifically designed for partnering with States to preserve forest lands that are threatened by development. And just as a reminder, over the last 3 years, USDA's only been able to fund roughly a quarter of those funding requests at this point, and by extending this would not serve a purpose. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I just note that my good friend from New York--and I appreciate his passion on this--but the organizations you named already have opportunities under the Community Forest Program. And we have two rather unique programs, one that already, well, as of the last farm bill that was done in 2008, provides the opportunity for nongovernmental groups to be able to participate. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and share the gentleman's desire to preserve forests in danger of conversion--that's very important to me. I chair the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, but I don't believe that this is the best way to do it. I respectfully oppose the amendment. The Forest Legacy Program has been successful, to date, due to its unique structure, partnering with States to preserve forested land threatened by development. Since its creation in the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program has more than been successful in fulfilling that purpose. The program has protected more than 2.2 million acres in 43 States and has leveraged $739 million of non-Federal funding over the last 20 years. By opening the program to nongovernmental programs, we're doing nothing to promote the program's purpose. Demand is quite high for the program. For the last 3 years, USDA has only been able to fund roughly a quarter of the funding requests under this program. Additionally, this change only has the effect of making the program more similar to other conservation programs. In the 2008 farm bill, we created the Community Forest Program with the purpose of allowing groups such as land trusts and Indian tribes the authority to manage forest easements. This was done in part to allow nongovernment groups to participate in protecting local forests. While I'm certain the gentleman from California has the best of intentions, I don't agree we have a problem with this program that justifies opening it for alteration; and, therefore, I will oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.