[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4129-H4136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                         RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lewis of Minnesota). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, tonight, as we have every other week for 
the last few months, I want to talk about the Mueller investigation and 
the kinds of results that are being developed by the FBI, by the 
Department of Justice, on a lot of very serious topics. The main topic 
is the Russians interfering with our elections, particularly the 2016 
election.
  That kind of interference goes to the heart of our Nation. It goes to 
the heart of our freedom. It goes to the heart of our independence. It 
goes to the heart of this country's sovereignty and to be able to make 
decisions without interference by nations other than the United States 
of America, other than us as citizens of the United States of America. 
I think we need to step back and think about this a little bit, because 
it is clear now.
  Just today, the Senate Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee 
said there is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to 
interfere with our 2016 elections. He says he looks forward to 
completing the committee's inquiry and issuing findings and 
recommendations to Americans.
  The vice chairman, Senator Warner from Virginia, says:

       After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the 
     intelligence community's conclusions were accurate and on 
     point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and 
     ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping 
     Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.

  In order to protect our democracy from future threats, we must 
understand what happened in 2016.
  So, a year ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to look 
into this affair and what exactly happened and to bring those to 
justice who broke our laws, who interfered with our sovereignty and our 
freedoms.
  But all along the way, the White House has objected, has tried to 
describe it as a witch hunt, as a hoax, as nothing but a charade, when, 
in fact, in this 1-year period there have been five guilty pleas and 22 
indictments.
  We kind have got to go back to the beginning, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H4130]]

  A year ago, Democrats were asking the President to turn over his tax 
returns, which all Presidents have done and which candidates do. The 
President refused and continues to refuse to this day to turn over his 
tax returns.
  So the question is: What is in there to hide? What is the big deal? 
What is he afraid of us seeing in those tax returns?
  Today, it came out in the news that the financial disclosure 
statement shows a payment to Michael Cohen, his attorney, that he said 
he never made.
  We have got to get to the bottom of these numbers, to the bottom of 
this Russian interference. Mr. Mueller and the FBI need to conclude 
their investigation without any interference, without any obstruction. 
For all of us as Americans, this applies to the very core of what a 
democracy is, and that is free, fair, and unimpeded elections.
  So there are three key questions that we keep asking. We ask our 
friends on the Republican side, particularly Speaker Ryan and Senate 
Majority Leader McConnell: Let's move forward with investigations here 
in this Congress. Why not?
  Let's find out what is really going on. Let's protect this 
investigation so that threats by the White House to fire Mr. Mueller, 
to fire Rod Rosenstein from the Department of Justice--they did fire 
individuals out of the FBI--let's let these detectives and these law 
enforcement officials finish their job. But the questions are: What are 
they hiding? What are they afraid that people will see? And why not let 
the detectives and the law enforcement officers finish their job?
  Let's play this out and see exactly what the facts are so we all know 
what happened and how we can stop it from happening again to make sure 
we have free and fair elections.
  I have been able to ask these questions and participate in these 
Special Order hours with several of my friends. One of those who has 
taken a keen interest in protecting this investigation and making sure 
that the facts do come to light has been my friend, Jared Huffman from 
northern California.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), 
for some of his thoughts as to where we are, because we have had many, 
many changes in terms of the lawyers who were representing either the 
White House or the President personally. They are gone. We have got new 
lawyers. Former District Attorney and Mayor Giuliani is now involved. 
Other people. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, is now out 
and under investigation himself. There seems to be something happening 
pretty much every day. I would like to get my friend's thoughts about 
it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is right that 
the pace of revelations and controversies surrounding this Trump White 
House and their personal financial and political involvement with 
Russia, their attempts to interfere with and obstruct justice relating 
to Mr. Mueller's investigation, the pace of all that is just dizzy. So, 
here we are, 1 year into the work of Special Counsel Mueller.
  I am glad that Congressman Perlmutter began his remarks by reminding 
us of the context of this issue; the fact that what happened in the 
2016 Presidential election was a big deal. It was unprecedented. A 
foreign adversary maliciously interfered in our election with a 
specific intent to help one candidate and to hurt another. They placed 
a bet on Donald Trump. They put their thumb on the scale in every way 
they could to help Donald Trump.

  Maybe that is why all along he has been reluctant to acknowledge what 
obviously happened. He doesn't want to talk about it. He wants to write 
it all off as a witch hunt and a conspiracy theory. He probably feels a 
little defensive about that cloud of legitimacy involving Russian 
interference.
  Based on what we know so far, there may be an even more sinister 
explanation for some of his behavior. It may be that he--or, at least a 
lot of people very close to him--were actively working with the 
Russians as part of this. That is what the Mueller investigation is 
looking into and that is what the American people have to find out. We 
have to know the full extent of exactly what happened, no matter where 
those facts may lead.
  The truth is, at this 1-year mark in this historic investigation, 
this historic scandal, there is plenty of reason to worry about what 
President Trump might do by way of trying to block and stop and 
interfere with this investigation. It is not just us saying it. You can 
look at his own word.
  He has said at various times in recent months: ``At some point I will 
have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get 
involved.''
  That is obviously a threat, whether that is using his pardon power or 
beginning to fire people in the Department of Justice, the FBI, or even 
the Special Counsel himself.
  He has threatened to reveal conflicts of interest of the Special 
Counsel. Obviously, this is a favorite tactic of President Trump, 
trying to intimidate, trying to posture with folks who he perceives as 
adversaries.
  He said on another occasion: ``Mueller is most conflicted of all 
(except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so 
they go crazy.''
  These are the ravings of someone who is acting very defensively. And 
I would say as a former attorney--Congressman Perlmutter is a former 
attorney himself--it really speaks to a consciousness of guilt. We 
would argue that if we were in a court of law and we had evidence of 
statements such as this repeatedly calling this investigation a witch 
hunt.
  On another occasion, he says: ``As I have been saying all along, it 
is all a big hoax by Democrats based on payments and lies. There should 
never have been a Special Counsel appointed. Witch hunt.''
  On another occasion he said:

       Why don't I just fire Mueller? Well, we'll see what 
     happens.

  Taken together, all of his various statements should be very 
troubling to anyone who cares about the independence of our law 
enforcement agencies and about the integrity of this critically 
important investigation.
  I am glad to stand with the gentleman tonight and every night that we 
have had these Special Order hours to continue to make sure that our 
colleagues here in the House know that we are going to defend this 
investigation, that we are going to do everything we can to make sure 
that our law enforcement professionals and Special Counsel Mueller have 
the chance to fully find the evidence, wherever it may lead, to get the 
truth out to the American people. We deserve nothing less.
  I am glad to see our colleague, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, 
joining the conversation.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from northern 
California, and his points are really well taken. This investigation, 
rather than just sort of pushing some paper around, we have had other 
special counsel appointed from time to time and just in this--some of 
them take years. Whether it was the Contra affair, Watergate, or 
whatever, it takes years and years.
  Here, really in 1 year, we have had 13 Russian either agencies or 
corporations and individuals indicted. We have had at least six or 
seven Americans indicted in this whole process.
  Recently, I think within the last few days, or maybe it was even 
today, Paul Manafort, chairman of the Trump campaign, objected to the 
indictment that he found himself under. He went to court and said that 
Mueller had exceeded his authority by bringing the indictment. The 
judge said: No, that indictment stands.
  There has been a lot of smoke. We know that there is some fire 
creating that smoke. We have got to find that. We have got to find 
precisely what happened.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), 
who has joined us and has got some thoughts about this that he will 
share.
  Mr. COURTNEY. First of all, I want to thank Congressman Perlmutter 
and Congressman Huffman who have been, again, diligent in terms of 
coming to the floor on a regular basis to push back against what is 
clearly a pretty coordinated, concerted effort to discredit the Mueller 
investigation. It is really pretty disturbing on many levels, 
fundamentally because it is an attack on institutions within our 
country which we all took an oath to uphold and defend.

[[Page H4131]]

  The rule of law is, frankly, one of the fundamental pillars of this 
country in terms of being a free society. When you have folks who, 
again, are holding public office going beyond just disagreements of 
opinion regarding actions that all of us as public officials have to be 
held accountable for, but really to attack the institutions themselves, 
which is clearly the drumbeat of criticism of the Mueller investigation 
and where it is headed, is something that really we need to speak out 
and push back against.
  Again, the 1-year anniversary is, I think, a very important moment to 
step back and reflect in terms of where this investigation started and 
where it is today.
  Again, if you go back a year ago and look at the reaction that 
greeted this appointment from, again, Republican leaders, Newt 
Gingrich, Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. His 
reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.
  Speaker Paul Ryan: ``My priority has been to ensure thorough . . . 
investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead. 
. . . The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent 
with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice.''

                              {time}  1945

  Senator Cory Gardner:

       Robert Mueller had an incredible reputation.

  Senator Orrin Hatch:

       I commend the Department of Justice for bringing an 
     independent voice to help clarify this situation.

  The list goes on and on. And again, why not? I mean, Robert Mueller 
is somebody who has a record of service to this country going back to 
when he was a marine in Vietnam. He led a rifle platoon, was wounded, 
received a Purple Heart as well as the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry 
and two Navy Commendation medals for his military service.
  He went on, obviously, to become a distinguished legal practitioner. 
He was appointed by President Bush to be the head of the FBI and did 
such a great job that, after his 10-year term, the U.S. Senate extended 
his term 2 years by a vote of 100-0.
  So when you are talking about somebody who has really earned a 
reputation for being, really, a pretty conservative prosecutor, both in 
terms of his time as a U.S. attorney and also in terms of his term as 
head of the FBI, we are dealing with someone who is beyond reproach, 
frankly.
  And as was pointed out by Mr. Perlmutter, the decision came down at 
the Washington, D.C., district court by Federal Judge Amy Berman 
Jackson in a 37-page opinion which, again, pushed back very powerfully 
about the notion that somehow he has strayed from his mission that the 
Department of Justice gave him.
  Again, her decision, just in case after case, points out that the 
indictment of Manafort fell perfectly within the charge that he was 
given by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rosenstein, which, again, is to 
investigate other issues that ``may arise from the investigation.''
  Again, in the case of Manafort, we are talking about somebody who was 
squarely within the intelligence community's conclusion that the 
election was basically under attack from Russians. Manafort's 
connections to Ukrainian interests, which clearly were sort of on the 
Russian side of Ukrainian politics, is just an obvious place for the 
special counsel to pursue.
  Again, as you point out, the number of indictments, the number of 
convictions, clearly show that this is not a fishing expedition, it is 
not a witch hunt. It is a serious prosecution whose every-step-of-the-
way actions have been ratified by the courts and also ratified by the 
appointing authority, Mr. Rosenstein.
  It is time for all elected officials to step back and let this 
process proceed. Again, the forensics on this in terms of just the 
endorsements to Mr. Mueller's credibility and experience and knowledge 
in this area scream out for all of us to respect the rule of law and 
let this investigation proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for holding this event on the 1-
year milestone of the Mueller investigation.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Connecticut has reminded 
me of something. And I think something that has really infuriated me is 
the President's attacks on the FBI, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, our chief and top law enforcement agency in this 
country.
  Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But are they doing their job to the 
best of their ability to protect Americans, to protect America? 
Absolutely. And for the President to sort of just continue to chip away 
and to excoriate the FBI because it is undertaking an investigation 
that may implicate him in breaking laws of the United States of 
America, I think, is something that we haven't seen. This investigation 
needs to continue to do its work, to talk to witnesses, to determine 
what has occurred here.
  The Senate Judiciary today, or within the last day or two, released 
thousands of pages of testimony and information. One of the places that 
it talked about was what happened at a meeting--I think it was at the 
Trump Tower--in June of 2016, so 5 months, 6 months before the 
election, between a Russian attorney. I think another Russian was 
there; Paul Manafort, the chairman of the campaign; Jared Kushner, son-
in-law of the President; and Donald Trump, Jr., his son.
  There is a lot of concern about what actually occurred in that 
particular meeting. There is a lot of material here that is very, very 
troubling.
  I know my friend from California has thought about this. He has 
thoughts about Mr. Giuliani saying that Donald Trump may take the Fifth 
Amendment, which I think came out of nowhere. But why would he want to 
take the Fifth Amendment?
  Again, the question is: What is he hiding? What is he afraid of? 
Let's just let law enforcement complete its work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, 
that infamous Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 just stinks to high 
heaven; the gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who looks objectively 
at what we know about that meeting, anyone who is not hosting a show on 
FOX News, at least, would feel that there is a big, big problem here 
and we have got to ask some hard questions.
  Of course, Donald Trump, Jr., initially outright lied about it, said 
it was about adoption. And then we saw the full text of the email 
exchange, making it very clear that this was the front-end part of a 
quid pro quo between the Trump operation and the Russians, that this 
was the offer of assistance, of dirt, of a bombshell on the Clinton 
campaign. And of course that was greeted with enthusiasm by Trump, Jr., 
who hastily arranged the meeting, brought in the top brass, said he was 
very excited about it if it is what he thought it was.
  And then, when it proved not to reveal that bombshell, he immediately 
expressed how disappointed he was, and some phone calls ensued. One of 
those phone calls was from a restricted number, and he claims he didn't 
remember exactly who that call was. Well, turns out his dad, our 
President now, has a restricted number.
  And that is a knowable fact. If our colleagues on the House 
Intelligence Committee were serious about this investigation, they 
would find out who that phone call was to because it is one of the dots 
that could need to be connected around this very controversial Trump 
Tower meeting. But they are not interested at all. They didn't ask 
those questions. They didn't even require Trump, Jr., to answer the 
questions, and they have rushed to shut down their investigation.

  So that brings me to the other point. We have all talked about the 
threats to the Mueller investigation from President Trump himself, but 
there is another threat from within these walls, from our colleagues on 
the House Intelligence Committee, who have taken this sacred trust of 
oversight that we have as Members of Congress and, unfortunately, 
compromised it to the level that they seem to simply be fronting for 
the President instead of doing a genuine investigation.
  Unlike their colleagues in the Senate who at least acknowledge the 
obvious, that Russia was trying to help President Trump in its 
interference, their report doesn't even say that. And then they include 
a gratuitous statement that they find no evidence of collusion, despite 
everything we have been talking about, everything that is already in

[[Page H4132]]

the public record. We have got a real problem within these walls that 
also threatens the investigation.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about quid pro quo, 
and the thing that I am worried about, I serve on the Terrorism and 
Illicit Finance Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services, 
where we deal a lot with sanctions: sanctions against North Korea, 
sanctions against Iran, sanctions against China, sanctions against 
Russia. With Russia having gone into Ukraine, Russia having gone into 
Crimea, and then Russia having interfered with our elections, a lot of 
sanctions are out there, but this administration seems to be using kid 
gloves in applying them.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has just hit on the ``quo.'' 
We talked about the ``quid'': the solicitations from Russia. Through 
Papadopoulos, even earlier, in April, the spring of 2016, those 
solicitations were welcomed and embraced by the highest levels of the 
Trump campaign, possibly even Mr. Trump himself. We need to nail down 
that phone call and a few other details.
  But now we are talking about the ``quo'' part: what would Russia get 
in return? And we know from undisputed evidence that Mike Flynn was 
working on sanctions relief even before they took office, during the 
transition, violating, apparently, the Logan Act as he was doing it. We 
know that this President and others in his administration have bent 
over backwards to try to cut Russia breaks on these sanctions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right to focus on that 
obvious piece, the ``quo'' part of this seeming quid pro quo. That is 
another reason why we have to let this investigation run its course: so 
that we can find out exactly what happened here.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Connecticut has 
some other thoughts, so I yield to him.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, real briefly, again, as I mentioned 
earlier and the two gentlemen have alluded to, we are talking about an 
effort to discredit the Mueller investigation that I think, really, as 
all Americans, we really should be concerned about the questions about 
whether or not our court system is truly fair, whether or not the FBI, 
the leading law enforcement agency of this country, is corrupt, which 
is, again, some of the language that has been sort of tossed around by 
the President's defenders. The harm that does in terms of really basic 
institutions in this country is something that I just think you can't 
treat as normal political discourse. We are talking about real long-
lasting harm to the country.
  Right now there are FBI counterterrorism agents who are hard at work, 
literally, as we are standing here on this floor, keeping this country 
safe. They are involved in investigations of mass shootings. You see 
the FBI jackets when these events happen, and they were in Connecticut 
when Sandy Hook took place.
  I would just say, from a personal standpoint, my parents both served 
in the FBI. My dad was a G-man back in the day, and my mother actually 
was a clerical worker there. That is how they met, actually. So I guess 
you could say I was born under the watchful eye of the FBI.
  But the fact of the matter is that he was somebody who was very proud 
of his service. Again, it was during World War II. His job was actually 
tracking fifth columnists in the U.S. who were looking to cause 
sabotage to critical facilities in the country.
  Again, there are always, in every organization, instances where there 
are bad apples. But the fact of the matter is, as an institution, in 
terms of law enforcement, these agents are out there every single day 
protecting this country; and to attack not just an individual decision 
but an institution is, again, the real sort of level that we are 
watching happen here with the pushback on the Mueller investigation, 
and it is just totally unacceptable.
  As I said, on the 1-year anniversary, it has proved its credibility, 
the Mueller team, in terms of concrete, real results. And the courts 
and, as I said, the Department of Justice have repeatedly reconfirmed 
and reaffirmed the rationale for the creation of the Mueller 
investigation and the fact that it is operating totally within the 
mission and charge that was given.
  So I think it is important for all of us to continue to raise our 
voices and defend the rule of law and institutions that are out there 
to protect our Constitution and our democracy.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, we will wrap up this portion of our 
Special Orders because I know we have another subject that Ms. Pingree 
and Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Tonko would like to address.
  Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this subject can't be overstated: the 
impact on elections; the trust in our system of elections; the trust in 
our law enforcement; the trust in our courts; the trust, which is 
attacked by this President and too many others, of our institutions of 
the press, whether it is The Washington Post or The New York Times or 
somebody investigating.
  And it goes to trust of this Nation and what we have formed. And when 
you have got outside influences like Russia sticking their nose in our 
business and trying to put their thumb on the scale as to who should 
run this Nation, I can't think of a higher crime.

                              {time}  2000

  And we know the National Security Advisor for Donald Trump, Michael 
Flynn, indicted; Rick Gates, campaign advisor for the Trump campaign; 
George Papadopoulos, foreign affairs advisor for Trump campaign; 
Richard Pinedo; Alexander van der Zwaan--all indicted, sentenced, or at 
least pled guilty. Indicted still: the campaign chairman, Paul 
Manafort; 13 Russian nationals; and 3 Russian entities.
  This investigation needs to get to the bottom of all of this. We have 
got to try to figure out: Is there anything being hidden? Is there 
anything that we, as Americans, should know about this interference 
that we don't know today? And our law enforcement officers, from Robert 
Mueller to the FBI to the cop on the beat, need to be allowed to finish 
this investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California and my friend 
from Connecticut. I yield to my friend from Maine (Ms. Pingree) because 
she seems to be ready to go here. I don't know about her two 
colleagues, the one from New York and the one from Oregon, because they 
seem to be kind of getting ready but not nearly as ready as my friend, 
Congresswoman Pingree.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding, and I 
thank him for, really, the eloquent conversation he has been having for 
the last half an hour about the extreme importance of the investigation 
that is going on and recognizing the fact that this is the 1-year 
anniversary, and obviously, we still have a long ways to go. This is a 
very critical issue, and we need to continue to support Robert Mueller 
and the work that he is doing, and I am very grateful for all that is 
going on.
  May 17 is not only the first anniversary of that investigation, but 
it is also the day we started the debate on the farm bill. And for 
those of you who have been following this, you will see that this week 
there are going to be amendments and general debate around this 
particular bill. I have also been joined by a couple of my colleagues 
from SEEC, the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, because we 
want to talk specifically tonight about how this farm bill harms the 
environment and conservation.
  You are going to hear all kinds of things about the farm bill. Some 
of the most egregious challenges are within the nutrition title, which 
takes up about 80 percent of the resources of the farm bill. But it is 
very important to talk about the role of the environment in this bill.
  A lot of people don't think about the farm bill as an environmental 
bill, but actually, farmland accounts for over 40 percent of our 
Nation's land, and what happens to farms and working forests has a huge 
impact on water quality, on wildlife, on environmental health, and the 
farm bill contains many provisions, some of which people don't often 
know that much about, that are important to conservation programs for 
farmers.
  Farmers understand why it is important to care for the land that 
takes

[[Page H4133]]

care of them. They know that conservation practices ensure that the 
resource remains sustainable while helping them to save money, 
preparing for environmental issues like drought and extreme weather. 
Conservation practices that sequester carbon in the soil, put more 
organic matter in the soil, have a huge impact on our ability to 
sequester carbon, which we all know is very important to issues around 
climate change.
  I just want to go over a few of the highlights, or you could say the 
low lights, of this bill when it comes to environmental practices, and 
then I am happy to share with several others who would like to talk 
about some of the programs, and we will have a little dialogue about 
it.
  One of the things that happens is it eliminates the Conservation 
Stewardship Program. These are financial incentives for farmers to 
implement long-term conservation practices that benefit wildlife and 
natural resources, which also help their bottom line. Elimination of 
this program is about $1 billion cut for conservation.
  Also, within the program, they are folding in the Conservation 
Stewardship Program into another program called EQIP, and these two 
programs will be worked together. And while maybe that sounds like it 
is streamlining in Maine, we are worried that they will have far less 
in resources overall.
  In Maine, programs have been particularly important to helping what 
has been a growth in small farms in our State and more resources to our 
farmers. People have built hoop houses, which extend our season and 
allow you to grow more in the early season and into the late season, 
helped with wells, composting facilities, a variety of other things. 
Now we are going to combine those programs, have less in resources, and 
farmers will just be fighting for far less dollars.
  The bill also eliminates a lot of mandatory funding. And one program 
I wanted to mention was the REAP program, Renewable Energy for America 
Program. I think many of us really care about renewable resources and 
allowing our farms and rural businesses to have more energy efficiency, 
use alternative energy improvements. This helps to reduce their 
environmental impact, and, again, their costs. It is very difficult to 
make a good living on a farm, and that has to be factored in as well.
  In Maine, the REAP program has helped install solar power, helped 
maple syrup producers reduce energy costs, generated energy from 
biomass, built more efficient processing systems, built an anaerobic 
digester, and so much more. So this is also a very critical program 
that is now going to be changed in the way it is funded, and that means 
we can't count on it going into the future.
  There are a lot of policy riders--and I am hoping my colleagues will 
talk about a few more of them--that will hurt farmers and the health of 
rural communities in many ways, and these have no place in the farm 
bill.
  One of them that I have heard a lot about from my constituents--and 
there is a lot of talk about--is the King amendment--the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King)--that would preempt local and State laws, which would 
preempt many of those laws that impact pesticides and animal welfare.

  Now, Maine, where we are a very outspoken State, we believe in 
agriculture, and we care deeply about the environment. We already have 
30 communities that have local pesticide laws restricting pesticides. 
That would be eliminated under this because they would be preempted.
  We have other laws about crate sizes, breeding crate sizes, puppy 
mills; any of those kinds of things that regulate animal practices, 
States would no longer be allowed to do. This is not a good States' 
rights issue. It is bad for the issues that we care about, and we 
should not allow this amendment to pass.
  There are also a variety of issues that would impact the Endangered 
Species Act. Now, we are lucky in Maine. Since 1978, when the impacts 
of DDT had reduced the number of bald eagles to about 20 nesting pairs, 
once that was eliminated and there was no more DDT, fast forward to 
today, in the last count, we have 500-plus bald eagles in our State. 
Almost everywhere in our State you can see a bald eagle out there 
fishing, doing its work.
  Well, the language in this bill would say that when reviewing 
pesticides and herbicides, there would no longer be any requirement for 
the EPA to consult expert wildlife agencies to identify and minimize 
impact to endangered species. Many of us are deeply worried about the 
effect on pollinators like bees and butterflies, which are critically 
important to agriculture. We can't exist without pollinators, and this 
is a terrible time to put them in further danger.
  I will just mention one more and then yield to a couple of my 
colleagues who are ready to speak. One provision in the farm bill would 
undermine the National Environmental Policy Act, that is, NEPA. Again, 
those are critically important reviews that go on in anything that we 
do. To weaken that would harm our communities, our environment, and our 
public health.
  So I have done a little bit of a broad overview, and I could talk 
about things that frustrate me in this farm bill all night long, but I 
want to yield to one of my great colleagues from the State of Oregon, 
someone who represents the other Portland, as we say. I have the first 
Portland.
  Mr. Speaker, more importantly, I yield back to my friend from 
Colorado.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maine. The farm 
bill--and agriculture and the environment--is always something she 
cares a lot about, whether it is conversations about milk or eggs or 
local control, which is really sort of at the heart of her concern 
about this bill, that, you know, Maine, and its local governments and 
the State as a whole, cares about its environment and it cares about 
its agriculture. And she, as a Representative, makes that clear to the 
rest of us how important it is to her State.
  So I thank the gentlewoman from Maine, and I now yield to my friend 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
allowing us to join in this conversation, and I strongly identify with 
what the Representative from the other Portland just said.
  In fact, North Haven, I am reflecting right now that, in 3 short 
months, during the summer recess, I plan on sitting on a deck looking 
out at North Haven and enjoying looking for those eagles that have been 
rescued and are very much in evidence in her beautiful part of the 
country.
  She is not just an advocate for the environment and for agriculture; 
she is a practitioner. And I have had an opportunity to tour her 
magnificent farm in North Haven that is really a model of 
sustainability, showing really what value-added agriculture is, 
reclaiming the history of that island in terms of the bounty of the 
land.
  But that doesn't happen by accident. It takes commitment and 
followthrough and, step by step, trying to harness the forces of sound 
agricultural policies, good environmental stewardship to be able to add 
value while it protects the environment.
  So I am looking forward to seeing her handiwork again this summer, 
and I deeply appreciate her leadership tonight in terms of the 
environment, what she cares about in terms of nutrition, celebrity 
chefs. There are a whole range of things, and it underscores why we are 
here talking about the farm bill.
  It is the most important legislation that most Americans pay no 
attention to. It is the most important piece of legislation that, 
sadly, few in the House of Representatives really drill down and look 
at what is in it. It will be the most important health bill that this 
Congress will pass or consider for the remainder of this session. We 
still subsidize a diet that makes Americans sick, paying too much to 
the wrong people to grow the wrong food in the wrong places, and it is 
the most important environmental bill, bar none.
  If you care about emissions of greenhouse gasses, the agriculture 
sector plays a role--9 percent, it is claimed statistically. But if you 
factor in all of the inputs in terms of pesticides and transportation, 
refrigeration, you will find that it is far greater than that, and 
these are elements that are within our control.
  The gentlewoman referenced the conservation programs. It is 
interesting to me, in reading the guidance that the

[[Page H4134]]

administration has put out about the farm bill and what they tout, they 
want to promote independence. They don't want to support dependency. 
They want to have higher performance standards for projects that they 
are involved with, yet the farm bill that is being considered now by 
the Republicans undercuts performance standards.
  When we eliminate, as the gentlewoman said, the Conservation Reserve 
Program, only one out of four conservation grants is currently funded. 
There is not enough money, and they are going to reduce it $1 billion 
more while eliminating the Conservation Stewardship Program. It is also 
stunning when there is an opportunity to provide performance standards 
for conservation.
  I have offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would 
apply conservation standards, that you get conservation funding if you 
produce results. But that is not the way it works now.
  The EQIP program, which hands out grants to help farmers improve the 
environment, you look at the practices that are authorized under this 
bill, that are funded under this bill, there are six or eight of them 
that actually hurt the environment. They are not required to enhance 
their environment. We pay for things like fencing and hog lagoons for 
big operations that ought to be able to pay their own way, and they 
take that money that would be available to other farmers and ranchers 
to be able to fund programs that would actually enhance the 
environment.
  I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership, and I appreciate 
what my friend from Colorado has offered up. We have other colleagues 
here who have some things to say. I will hang tight for a moment in 
case we run out of speakers, but I want to cheer folks on because it is 
time that we put the spotlight on this egregious bill, the King 
amendment, the lack of accountability, and wasteful spending.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
those comments, who, as always, is very knowledgeable and passionate 
about the things that really matter to most Americans, and I thank him 
for being such an advocate for the environment, always, every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend. I know Mr. Polis has some things he would like to add to this 
conversation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the senior gentleman from Colorado 
for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a couple of the terrible conservation 
and environmental bills that affect the district I represent, our 
State, and our country.
  As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned, the elimination of the 
Conservation Stewardship Program, a program that has been successful to 
help preserve over 70 million acres, is, frankly, inexcusable. The 
Conservation Stewardship Program supports farmers, ranchers, and owners 
of forests who want to pursue high-level conservation stewardship 
activities. It is important to protect our watershed that our towns and 
communities rely on, to keep our air clean, to sequester carbon, to 
maintain diverse habitats for wildlife, and, yes, to keep our farms 
productive and sustainable in the long term.
  Working lands conservation programs are so popular that the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service wound up having to have a waiting list. 
It had to turn away almost three-quarters of the qualified applicants. 
Under the proposal today it would have to turn away 100 percent of 
applicants.
  Now, they claim that they are consolidating some programs into the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, but, frankly, those 
programs are very different. Whereas, the Conservation Stewardship 
Program helps farmers and ranchers implement advanced conservation and 
stewardship systems to help preserve and protect the resources on their 
lands.
  EQIP is more of an introduction or on-ramp to working lands 
conservation. It is on a one-time basis to help a specific conservation 
practice. It is not a program that designed, nor does it provide, 
assistance for long-term sustainability.
  That is why the Conservation Stewardship Program is so important for 
our forest health. Switching gears to our national forests, it seems 
that some Members of this body are still seeking to erode protections 
for our national forests.
  One example in this bill, the Tongass National Forest, in Alaska, 
which is one of the crown jewels of our National Forest System, faces a 
huge threat with two amendments. One of those amendments in the bill, 
which was already ruled in order last night without any debate, would 
exempt all of the Federal forests in Alaska--more Federal forests than 
any State in the country--to one of the most important conservation 
safeguards: the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
  The second amendment would overturn the Tongass forest plan, which 
protects roadless areas and other ecologically important lands from 
unsustainable logging, and charts a transition away from taxpayer 
subsidized, industrial scale, old-growth logging, to better and new 
forms of sustainable economic development.
  Our country's old-growth forests are, frankly, a National treasure. 
Clear-cutting ancient forests not only compromises our public lands; 
but it devastates and fragments habitat for wildlife, it introduces 
invasive species that compete with native species; and, yes, it 
pollutes the drinking water supplies for as many as 60 million people.
  The Roadless Rule is very important because it provides a balanced 
protection between our old-growth forests and public roads, and 
hydropower projects. Its application in Alaska has a very positive 
impact on community access and economic development, and we need to 
maintain the rule.
  As representatives and stewards of our forests, under the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, it is absolutely critical to protect our 
public lands. From the Clean Water Act to NEPA, which this bill would 
devastate for projects that are 6,000 acres or less, to the Endangered 
Species Act, which has had so many great successes, we need to protect 
the tools we have to secure a safe environment and a diverse habitat 
for our wildlife.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, and others, 
for speaking out on the important environmental provisions in this 
bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for 
bringing up these important points, and I wish him well as he goes on 
about a campaign for Governor in the State of Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), my 
friend, again, a tireless advocate for the environment. Obviously, New 
York produces, especially in his part of the State, a lot of farms and 
a lot of agriculture. This is a subject that he knows well.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak, this evening, joining with some members of 
SEEK. You heard earlier from the gentlewoman from Maine, who spoke of 
the SNAP cuts, the nutrition cuts. Congresswoman Pingree is absolutely 
right: It is a big portion of the farm bill.
  But, beyond that, I am horrified with this current farm bill that 
proposes many harmful provisions that would completely disregard some 
very bedrock environmental laws. As one of the cochairs of SEEK, which 
aims for sustainable outcomes for energy and environment policy, you 
must speak to this bill, because it is so dreadful as it relates to our 
environmental and energy policy.
  This bill weakens environmental and public health protections against 
pesticides, many of which were established to protect the health of our 
children. Those protections that would be destroyed by this farm bill 
include allowing companies to spray pesticides into our waterways 
without even obtaining a Clean Water Act permit, endangering sources of 
drinking water and places where we swim and where we fish; preempts 
local governments from taking steps to protect their communities from 
pesticides; and weakens protections for endangered species by 
eliminating the requirement to consult with Federal wildlife experts.

  These pesticides can elevate the risk of cancer and other chronic 
diseases.

[[Page H4135]]

Removal of Clean Water Act protections, and the preemption of local 
efforts to protect communities, puts our public health at great risk.
  The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified 
the pesticide glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The United 
States Geological Survey routinely finds glyphosate in our United 
States waterways.
  EPA's scientific review found that the pesticide chlorpyrifos in 
water and on food is unsafe for children and increases the risk of 
learning disabilities. Prenatal exposures to this chemical are 
associated with reduced IQ and delayed motor development. Whenever 
chlorpyrifos is sprayed, it can cause immediate and long-term health 
harms to kids, to farmers, to farmworkers, and others who are exposed.
  These provisions also put our wildlife at risk. Decades ago, bald 
eagles and peregrine falcons were brought to the brink of extinction by 
the pesticide DDT.
  To address such issues, the EPA is required, under the Endangered 
Species Act, to consult with the expert Federal wildlife agencies when 
approving chemicals that can harm endangered species. This bill 
eliminates that requirement, threatening endangered wildlife and 
hindering recovery of imperiled species.
  Our farm bill is about supporting farmers, strengthening communities, 
and providing food for America. Rolling back public health and wildlife 
protections has no place in this bill.
  The cuts of $23-plus billion in SNAP benefits, kicking an estimated 1 
million households off of the program and affects 265,000 children out 
of free school meals is torturous in its own right.
  Someone, today, earlier said: When I was a kid, my money for food 
programs, for lunch programs was taken by the school. Now Congress is 
taking the money for school lunch programs away from the kids.
  Cuts of $800 million in conservation funding are devastating to our 
environment, and the cutting of vital funding for renewable energy and 
energy efficiency in our rural communities, which will eliminate the 
Rural Energy for America Program, is going to be a great consequence of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I was compelled to come to the floor and join with my 
colleagues as a member of SEEK that is looking for sustainable energy 
and environment outcomes to speak against this bill, which is going to 
hurt the progress over the last decades that speaks to agriculture in 
America, farming in America, and the quality of life for children and 
families across this great land.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
those comments. I can say, to those who are listening, that Mr. Tonko 
serves on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and speaks up 
about the environment and about concerns about chemicals, the effects 
on public health, the effects on the environment, and I thank him for 
his advocacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), my 
friend, for his thoughts on this particular subject, a gentleman who is 
an outdoorsman, and talks about the farms and the cheeses of Wisconsin. 
He is here as a real advocate for his State. I am sorry that he has had 
the Green Bay Packers and they have fallen on hard times.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, even with that introduction, I thank my very 
good friend and colleague from Colorado for holding this Special Order.
  I am honored actually to be on the House floor with so many of my 
esteemed colleagues, who have taken a back seat to no one when it comes 
to standing up for our natural resources: for the conservation title, 
specifically, of this farm bill. And I am looking at the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and the work that she has done on agriculture 
policy throughout the years, and her service to her district: the 
introduction of the local Farms Act that she has worked on in a 
bipartisan fashion. My friend from Oregon, who is one of the foremost 
thinkers and leaders when it comes to environmental policy, but the 
impact on our family farms throughout our country.
  This is an important moment, because this is one of the more 
important bills that we have to consider in this session of Congress: 
the renewal of the farm bill. We have a chance every five or six years 
to take a look at the program to see what is working, what isn't, and 
fix what isn't working to make sure that we are empowering our farmers 
with the tools and resources that they need to be successful.
  I come from one of the largest agriculture producing districts in the 
Nation, in rural western and north-central Wisconsin. It has been tough 
in farm country in the last few years, given where commodity prices 
have been, and, yes, where milk prices have been falling for the last 3 
years. It is very difficult for these individual entities and family 
farms to succeed with this very tough market that they are facing right 
now.
  That is why taking our time to get this farm bill done right is the 
appropriate thing to do. But, unfortunately, the farm bill in its 
current form misses the mark in so many areas.
  There has been a lot of discussion about what is happening under the 
conservation title, the elimination of the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, which has worked incredibly well, and has been very successful 
for my family farmers in Wisconsin. I come from a very hilly area with 
bluffs and coulees: a lot of highly sensitive and erodible land and a 
lot of water source.
  Being able to use a Conservation Stewardship Program that is built in 
for the flexibility for what my farmers need, and the technical 
assistance that they need, to put good conservation plans in practice 
is very important. As the previous speaker highlighted, too, the demand 
is overwhelming. Three out of every four farmers nationwide applying 
for conservation funding assistance are currently turned away because 
of the inadequacy of resources.

  By eliminating the Conservation Stewardship Program and rolling it 
into the EQIP program eliminates $800 million worth of base funding. 
This comes on the heels of the previous farm bill, where there were $8 
billion worth of cuts under the conservation title. We are not stepping 
up to address the need that exists in farm country; instead, we are 
rolling it back even further.
  But the problems with this farm bill don't just end under the 
conservation title. Under title I commodity programs, they are lifting 
the payment limitation caps that had been in existence for some time. 
Now, pass-through entities will be able to qualify for these subsidy 
payments.
  I think the average viewer, and average taxpayer, would be shocked to 
see the mailing addresses for these commodity subsidy programs going to 
New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, ending up on the doorsteps of 
multi-millionaires and billionaires, who are receiving government 
subsidies under the commodity program. That is wrong. These people 
won't even set foot on a family farm. Rolling back any protections that 
exist under the multiple entity rule, which means that husbands, wives, 
daughters, sisters, sons, aunts, and uncles can qualify for the same 
payments, is also wrong.
  Finally, there is an opportunity to tighten the crop insurance 
program. Right now, it is prohibited from even tracking these crop 
insurance premium subsidies. You can't even track it to the individual.
  If there is one thing that this farm bill should demand is complete 
transparency. The American taxpayer deserves to know where their tax 
dollars are going, but they can't now under the crop insurance program. 
That is something else that I am trying to fix with an amendment. We 
are going to find out later today what amendments are made in order to 
try to improve this bill. It may be beyond salvage at this point coming 
out of the House, but we still have time later this year to do the 
right thing to make sure that this farm bill speaks to the needs of our 
family farmers back home and not to the powerful special interests here 
in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again for yielding me this time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
those comments. He makes so many good points, and he does it in a way 
that really is understandable by all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), 
my friend, if he wishes, to close.

[[Page H4136]]

  


                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate that.
  It has been fun working with Congresswoman Pingree, with my friend 
Ron Kind, looking at these programs over the years.
  There is a great essay written by Marion Nestle, an author, a 
professor of nutrition at NYU, and the title of the essay is ``The Farm 
Bill Drove Me Insane.'' As she tried to actually teach a class about 
the farm bill to graduate students, she dove into it and found that it 
was just hopelessly complex.
  What I appreciate about working with the gentlewoman from Maine and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin is it doesn't have to be that complex.
  We ought to be able to strip this away, have a full and honest 
debate, and get to the basics that make the most difference for the 
American public.
  Hopefully this thing will collapse, and we will have some time this 
year to work on it and make it better.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________