Floor Statements

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I always enjoy listening to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, with whom I have worked on a number of projects. I have the greatest respect for him. But I don't always agree with his analysis. It's interesting to listen to people who are claiming that they're concerned that they've been shut out of the process or that they are irrelevant. I do think there is some real question about the relevance of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, but that is a decision that they and their leadership have made consciously.

Now I don't think that my good friend from Ohio falls into the description of what his fellow Ohioan has declared that Republican legislators should be. Minority Leader Boehner has said, They shouldn't be legislators, they should just be communicators, because their job is more of a political one, not being involved with the process. That is why their budget plan was not a budget plan, but it was a press release. In fact, I was kind of embarrassed for them when they announced it with great fanfare and the press asked, Well, where are the details? You're giving us a press release. Sadly, sitting on the Budget Committee, we found that our Republican friends were not involved with a serious alternative that would deal with our Nation's problems.

We have enacted, for the first time in history, a significant, comprehensive piece of legislation that's passed the House to deal with carbon pollution, climate change, global warming, and the fact that the United States simply can no longer continue to waste more energy than any other country in the world. The Republican response, the tone has sort of in part been set by the Senator from Oklahoma who has declared that global warming is a hoax. We have not seen a Republican response that puts forth a comprehensive effort. In fact, the previous 8 years of the Bush administration, Republican control, were characterized by global warming denial, interference with States that were trying to do something. Remember the State of California and nine other States who wanted to put in place more effective energy protections for automobiles, higher standards? California has this right under the law. It requires a waiver for the Federal Government, waivers that Republican and Democratic administrations alike have always granted, except for the Bush administration and the Republicans in the latest round over the last 8 years. They denied that right for the people in California to move forward and deal with it. Denied

the opportunity to save energy, to create new jobs. It's I think, frankly, embarrassing.

Most recently we've had a chance to watch up close and personal the debates that are taking place dealing with health care. Frankly, I have got some personal experience with this because I tried to do exactly what my previous two friends were talking about, and that was to have serious efforts for bipartisan legislation to improve America's health care. You know, you wouldn't know it, listening to some of the rhetoric that comes from leadership; but there are actually areas of broad bipartisan agreement. One deals with the notion that our senior citizens and people and their families who are facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances, dealing with end-of-life situations, that these citizens and their families ought to be able to have their doctor help them understand what they're facing, what their choices are; and most importantly, have them be able to tell their family and their doctor what they want done. Sadly today, Medicare, although it will pay for all sorts of tests and procedures, 7,000 different categories, I think is the count, it won't pay for a senior's doctor or nurse or some other trusted health professional to sit down and have that conversation with them. Madam Speaker, when we worked on the Ways and Means Committee, we found that Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that that was wrong, agreed that this was an area, when we were talking about health care reform, that we should change. We should have Medicare and any reform effort that we brought forward help seniors and their families prepare for the most difficult decision any of us will face.

We had bipartisan legislation. I am proud to say that we discussed it extensively in committee. In fact, some of the most heartrending stories for the need for this legislation did not come from our witnesses. They came from members of the committee, including Republican members, who talked about why this legislation was important. Well, that is why I was proud that this legislation we've been working on, that I cosponsored, that I have had Republicans join me in cosponsoring, was incorporated into the House reform legislation, House bill 3200.

But, you know, people who've watched C-SPAN and the news over the course of the last week, people who've read news accounts, would see that this bipartisan, humane, important legislation giving more choice to seniors and their families for being able to make sure that their needs are met the way they wanted, that was hijacked.

We saw, sadly, on the Web page of the Republican minority leader that they're claiming that this is somehow leading us down the path of euthanasia. We heard a Republican on the floor this week claim that their approach is better because it would protect senior citizens from the government taking their life. Absolutely outrageous and shameful, inaccurate statements designed to inflame, confuse and, frankly, gum up the works.

I find no small amount of irony, because what my Republican friends were claiming they wanted to be involved, they were involved. They agreed with it. And yet we're finding people, for political purposes, trying to mislead and scare families across America.

It's ironic, because the only provision that I know that would have been mandatory was actually offered up by a Republican Senator, who's a friend of mine, from Georgia, who had offered the proposal. It wasn't accepted. It was later withdrawn, but the proposal was that before somebody enroll in Medicare, that they have to fill out a form telling people what they want rather than having people guess about it. Not a bad idea to consider.

But in this climate where people are trying to poison the discussion, stifle the debate, and prevent us moving towards health care reform, it would have, sadly, been toxic. It's ironic that I had one of my Republican doctor colleagues tell me that he has conversations like this often, but he said that he wishes that it wasn't in the last hours before a major operation or before it was too late; that people ought to think about it, and we ought to do it in reasonable fashion, like we proposed under our bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, this is an example of where I think our Republican friends really need to take a deep breath and decide whether they are going to be communicators or they're going to legislate, whether they're going to join us in trying to solve these problems. There are amazing opportunities.

One of the things that has been interesting, even the most hardened C-SPAN junkies of late have probably been a little embarrassed when they hear Republicans coming to the floor braying like donkeys asking, ``where are the jobs?'' interrupting otherwise semicoherent speeches with a refrain over and over again, ``where are the jobs?'' like somehow the Democrats and President Obama have taken them and hidden them. But I give them credit for finally asking an important question; although, without any context and without any answer, looking as though they had no clue.

Next, to national security and the health of our communities, the record of job creation, how many, what kind, and for whom is one of the most fundamental issues that government will face in tough times of high unemployment and job insecurity. It can, in fact, sometimes feel like it crowds everything else out, and no wonder. Americans want economic security for themselves, their family, and ultimately for the country. If we're not economically secure, we can't deal with cleaning up the environment, with education and health care.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are losing an opportunity, not just to ask themselves a question, but to deal with these critical, long-term economic questions because, in a dynamic, free market economy like the United States, the job creation process is a continuous one.

Every day in America jobs are being created and jobs are being lost. The real question is what is the balance between job growth and job loss. What's the nature of the jobs, and how do we improve it for the future. I understand my Republican friends starting to pay more attention to this because, candidly, the Republican record, since 1940, is not exactly stellar in this regard.

Since 1940, Republicans have been in charge of the United States more years than Democrats, 36-33. But, despite that fact, in terms of actual job creation, you can go back and look at the Department of Labor's statistics, for those 33 years, Democrats created 64.2 percent of the jobs in this country. Republicans were responsible for 35.8 percent of the jobs.

Now, I'm not saying this was all President Kennedy or President Johnson or President Truman, and I'm not saying that there weren't things that President Eisenhower and President Reagan did that were important and useful. It isn't always the partisan makeup that is determinative. But there is a very interesting pattern that should count for something.

When my Republican friends come to the floor braying, ``where are the jobs?'' they ought to look at the record, and the record is that Democrats have a better history of job creation. And you don't have to go back to Truman and Eisenhower to look at that. It has, in fact, been a rather dramatic difference just in the period of time that I've been in Congress. We've had 16 years, 8 years of the Clinton administration, 8 years of Bush, where there's a pretty stark difference.

The Clinton administration produced 22 million jobs in the period of time. They averaged 237,000 jobs per month, despite the predictions of some of my Republican friends, many of whom actually are still in Congress, that the policies, the economic policies, the tax policies of the Clinton administration were going to destroy the economy. 237,000 jobs per month created. And that's more than the 150,000 jobs that a dynamic American economy needs to sort of keep in balance.

What was the record under the Bush administration where the Republicans were actually in control, almost absolute control of Congress, and they were in control of the White House? The Bush, the second Bush administration, created only 58,000 jobs per month. It's the lowest average monthly job creation rate since the Eisenhower administration when the country was almost half as small. It was the lowest average yearly job creation since Herbert Hoover. And it got worse as it went along.

The economy lost half a million net jobs in 2008. Now, remember, this is an administration, 5 million jobs in the Bush administration, 22 million jobs in the Clinton administration, and those are just private sector jobs.

In the Bush administration, 2\1/2\ million people were added to unemployment, and there were a smaller proportion of Americans who were working when Bush left office than when Clinton left office. But that trend was actually quite disturbing because, for 10 consecutive months as the Bush administration was wrapping up, we were seeing job loss. And they continued early in the new year.

Now, I think even my most partisan Republican friends would agree that you don't take a massive economy like the United States and turn it on a dime. The fact that Barack Obama became President January 20 didn't turn around. The jobs that were being shed and lost were a result of the previous 8 years of activity. And so, much of the last 10 months of job loss, plus what has happened earlier in this year is certainly not the fault of the Obama administration.

The Obama administration has inherited the worst financial collapse in American history since the Great Depression, with the effects that are still being felt on the State and local level and will continue to ripple throughout the economy even after it's turned around. It would be premature, at best, to render a verdict on the Obama administration, although I am actually pleased that my Republican friends who remained silent in the midst of the anemic job performance of the Republican administration under George Bush and actually went into negative areas, I'm glad that they've found their voice and are starting to speak out. Now it's time to engage their brains in these important long-term questions.

The fundamental nature of the job market is, in fact, changing in this country. Employers are slower to replace jobs. Assumptions about guaranteed employment and benefits are being challenged as economic models have been turned upside down. We ought to be working on two different levels.

One is to stop an economy in free fall, to strengthen opportunities to avoid future job reductions and strengthen underlying economic activity. The second is to deal with the nature of future jobs. It's even more important than the short-term strategy, because in a large and growing country, we need to be able to provide for the needs of workers, young and old, with a variety of interests and skills all across the country. This suggests that it is time for my friends on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their opposition to infrastructure investment and unyielding support for more and more tax cuts, especially for those who need them the least. That's the same formula that the Republicans were offering which, essentially, helped create the problem.

For 8 years, they had unprecedented control, not just of the executive but the legislative branch. They resisted robust infrastructure investment. Even when it appeared a year ago that the economy was teetering, when we were starting to see actual job loss, President Bush and his Republican allies would only agree to a tax cut- only solution.

We implored, we begged, put unemployment insurance into the equation, put food stamps into the equation. This is money that all the economists agree will have more stimulative effect. This is something that will help people most in need, and they'll spend it right away. These are people who are living on the edge. And for heaven's sake, work with us to spend a little money rebuilding and renewing America, because these not only create construction jobs, engineering jobs across America, but it also improves our long-term productivity by protecting the environment, by stopping congestion and pollution. They refused. The only thing they would agree to was a package of tax cuts, including tax cuts for many people who, frankly, didn't need them.

Well, that changed with the election of President Obama and strengthened Democratic leadership in Congress. We produced an economic recovery package, and it was passed in a few days in the new Congress, that met broad needs across the country. As a gesture to Republicans, as an effort to get Republican support, the largest single portion of that recovery package was tax cuts. Now, we're not hearing, as the Republicans come to the floor asking in a confused way, ``where are the jobs?'' they ignore the fact that an important part of this recovery package is their favorite solution, tax cuts, $288 billion.

Now, we limited the tax cuts to the bottom 95 percent. We're not giving it to the wealthiest Americans but to the Americans who need it the most. By the way, it fulfills a campaign pledge of President Obama's. Every working family in America who is in the bottom 95 percent has enjoyed a reduction in their tax rates and a reduction in their withholdings, which is having some effect on the economy. It was a gesture to the Republicans. Ironically, as for the Republicans who come to the floor who say they want to be involved, we put this in to address their concerns and to engage them.

How many Republicans in the House voted for the package? Zero. Even though almost half of the package was their favorite prescription and it was going to 95 percent of the American public, there was not a single Republican vote, and there were only three in the United States Senate.

We went beyond that. We added $144 billion to State and local fiscal relief. I don't know what it's like in your community, but I'll tell you that, if our State legislature hadn't received several billion dollars for Health and Human Services, a half billion dollars for education, over a third of a billion dollars for transportation infrastructure, the unemployment rate in my State would be even higher, and our legislature would tie itself in knots trying to figure out what to do.

You know, it's interesting. Some of the Republican Governors made a big show that they weren't going to accept this money for unemployment insurance. Hello. They had to be forced in States like Texas and in South Carolina by Republican legislators to stop grandstanding and accept money to help the poor and unemployed in their States.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting all of those people who voted against the economic recovery and who voted against the infrastructure. It's interesting looking at a list of them who are showing up to be on the platform when the ribbon is cut when the projects are announced. I find it ironic that the Republican leaders who voted against it are claiming credit in their press releases for important projects that are being funded in their States. They're communicating, but it's a curious communication--claiming credit, blaming Democrats because it doesn't happen instantaneously, not being part of formulating the solution.

It is, I think, frankly, embarrassing watching the spectacle. The most embarrassing thing about what's going on in South Carolina is not whether some politician was hiking the Appalachian Trail or not but the fact that it took their legislature to take a State that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation and accept money to help impoverished people. That's what's embarrassing.

Well, I am pleased that we actually did enact this. I'm sorry that Republicans decided not to support it. I'm sorry that they are attacking and distorting. I'm sorry that they, in the past, haven't been concerned about job creation. It has not been an issue until recently when they've thought they could make political mileage out of it.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious business, and the American public deserves a Congress that will treat it seriously, not one that comes to the floor, braying ``Where are the jobs?'' or one that ignores legislation that they have before them that talks about what investments have been made in health care, in education and in infrastructure.

In fact, just this week, we had over 60 Republican legislators vote against filling a hole in the Highway Trust Fund. If they'd had their way, it would have meant that we would have stopped issuing important transportation projects this summer, which make a difference all over America.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by just making some reference to job intensity. We've had a program that speaks to job creation and to trying to keep

the jobs that we've got. It speaks to trying to help State and local governments and the private sector move forward. Our energy legislation that passed the House, if it were to pass in the Senate and be enacted into law, would make a huge difference for jobs in the future within the energy business--everything from wind and solar to more energy- efficient construction. It is time for us to use the tools to develop more and better jobs and to think about how we spend dollars that will create the most jobs: job intensity.

Many of the smaller-scale projects in transportation, in community livability and in rehabilitation carry multiple benefits. Last Sunday's New York Times was filled with stories of decayed roads in the metropolitan New York area, in Connecticut, in New York, and in New Jersey. Yet these articles could have been written about places all across the country--from Detroit, to Decatur, to Davenport, to Denver-- where investment, if it happens at all, really hasn't been invested in the ways that will create the most jobs.

Going out to some suburban area and building a new road in a newly developed area rather than fixing decayed existing infrastructure does not create as many jobs as fixing it first. Fixing it first is a winner because it will help to restore damaged communities. It will not add an inventory of more and more roads that will have to be maintained when we can't even maintain our roads, bridges and transit systems right now. Fixing it first is much more labor-intensive. There are more jobs to be created in fixing existing infrastructure that is falling apart than in making new infrastructure that will have to be maintained in the future.

It also strengthens mature cities. Many in America are concerned about the vitality of their inner cities. It's not just older industrial cities that one thinks of, like Detroit or Buffalo, but cities around the country, from Cincinnati to my hometown of Portland, Oregon. People are concerned about what's happening in the inner cities. You know, it's not just the inner city. It's that first and second tier of suburbs around them. We need to be thinking about these metropolitan areas, about making strategic investments that are going to strengthen local economies and are going to create more jobs, which will enable us to revitalize the neighborhoods that Americans live in.

There is also a question about what we're going to do with jobs for the future. Even if we're able to get the auto industry back on its feet--and some of my friends have heard our colleagues recently talking about their concerns about whether or not the auto bailout was effectively targeted. Well, I think we don't want a collapse of the American automobile industry in the United States. It would not just affect the upper Midwest. It would send a ripple effect across the country, affecting all of those dealerships and the many auto suppliers. Even if it works, it's very unlikely that we're going to have the high level of automotive activity that we've had in the past. We've got a lot of inventory. Things are being scaled down.

What will be the source of new job growth in the future if we're able to hold onto the auto industry that we have?

Another area that we've had has been the homebuilding and development industry that, since World War II, has been a source of dramatic growth and activity, especially in the last 20 years. Its construction, finance and home sales have employed all sorts of people all along the food chain, which has propped up the economies in southern California, Florida, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. Now these same boom areas are in a collective swoon, and look to have significant development over supply for years to come.

We're going to see a rebalance in the future in the type of housing. Smaller families are going to be the norm. By 2040, there will be more single-person households than families with children. With another 100 million Americans, who will be here by the mid-century, we are going to be changing dramatically--where we live, how we live, how we move. We're going to move forward in restructuring communities.

We also need to think differently about job creation. We need, as I say, to be looking at the job density for the rehabilitation and for the location of infrastructure. There's going to be an explosion of needs to upgrade our infrastructure for sewer, for water, for the smart grid.

Future jobs will focus on enhanced efficiency, on new energy supplies, on being able to clean up after ourselves. Tens of millions of acres that the United States owns have been polluted by unexploded ordnance and by military toxins because of years--actually, centuries-- of military training and activity in the United States. Maybe we should start cleaning that up and putting people to work repairing the environmental damage and then recycling that land for park and open space, for housing and industrial development.

We've got lots of opportunities, Mr. Speaker, to be able to redirect the economy--to deal from health to energy. That is what the administration and the leadership in Congress are attempting to do.

The bottom line is that we are going through a major restructuring. It's hard. The administration has inherited the most damaged economy since the Depression. It's not going to turn on a dime. It's going to be a struggle for the next year or two, but it's going to be redirected faster. We're going to recover faster, and it's going to be sustainable if we are able to move in the right direction for the future.

I've talked about energy, about renewable resources, about using Federal resources more wisely, about being able to invest in critical infrastructure. I'm hoping that this is one area in which our Republican friends will join us to reverse the policies of the Bush administration, which have, frankly, prevented us from passing the transportation reauthorization for 2 years. We had 12 short-term extensions, and we were forced to accept a funding level that even the Bush Transportation Department said was almost $100 billion lower than what we needed.

We have got an opportunity to rebuild and to renew America. We have got an opportunity to work together. I am hopeful that the American public will weigh in on these issues. Nothing is more critical, and nothing will bring about, I think, a little more grown-up behavior here on the floor of the House than if the American public indicates that they're watching and if they ask the hard questions.

As Members of Congress return to their districts this next month for meetings and for townhalls with business, with media, with students, with churches, and with civic organizations, having Americans asking these pointed and direct questions will help us get on track.

I am convinced that, ultimately, with the help of the American public, a new administration and a Congress that is focusing on what is most important, we will be able to deliver on this promise: That we will have a better Federal partnership, that we will strengthen the livability of our neighborhoods and that we will make our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate the leadership of the chairman. And it's great to see food safety receive the full attention that it deserves.

I am especially concerned about the language regarding interaction between wildlife, livestock, and farming practices. Biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm. We should not penalize farmers for utilizing techniques such as naturescaping, floodplain restoration, and natural hedgerows to encourage crop health, control pests and invasive species, and enhance soil quality.

We should target reform and safety efforts towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreaks rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides, and other carbon-intensive farming techniques.

I would like the assurance from the chairman that he will work with us as Food and Drug Administration develops these criteria so that they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.

Thank you, Mr. Farr, for permitting me to participate in this colloquy.

Thank you, sir.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following regarding H.R. 3200:

Physicians

``As a geriatrician who specializes in care of older

adults, the more power and choice we can put in the hands of

patients the better! My patients are afraid of being over-

taken by the health care system. Advance care planning

restores the focus to where it belongs--on the patient's

goals, the patient's wishes, and putting the patient--not the

system--in the drivers seat.''--Diane. E. Meier, MD, Gaisman

Professor of Medical Ethics, Director, Center to Advance

Palliative Care, Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

``Patients and families have suffered too much and for too

long and needlessly. Adjusting the system so that providers

know what the patient's goals for care are allows us what we

all want: the chance for every person to live by our values--

including when sick. With palliative care we can live life to

its fullest till the very last drop--including while curative

treatment continues. People make the best decisions when the

decisions are their own. When that happens, as individuals

and as a nation, we will be paying for what is right, not for

what is wrong. This bill gives us the right to do what is

right.''--Linda L Emanuel, MD, PhD, Buehler Professor of

Medicine, Director, Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society

at Feinberg School of Medicine.

``As a physician, I strongly believe in advance planning

for life threatening illness and end of life care. Patients

deserve the opportunity to have voluntary yet candid

conversations with their physicians about who they want

involved and how they want their care managed during a

serious illness. A provision in H.R. 3200 encourages and

supports physicians to open the door for these important

discussions as their patients deal with unexpected illness

and anticipate natural life cycles. Thoughtful planning can

only help bring peace, comfort and healing to patients and

their families during a difficult time.''--Glenn Rodriguez,

M.D., Chief medical officer, Providence Health & Services--

Oregon.

``Understanding patient preferences for care at the end of

life is a key component of patient centered care. Substantial

literature indicates that discussing care preferences

improves quality of life for patients and reduces caregiver

grief. These conversations require skill and time. The

Advanced Planning provisions in H.R. 3200 provide training

and reimbursement to deliver these essential care

components.''--Robert A. Gluckman, MD, FACP.

``As a palliative medicine physician and geriatrician who

cares for healthy older adults and those living with serious

illness and their families, I wanted to express my

unqualified support for efforts to promote advance care

planning and palliative care in the House health reform bill

[H.R. 3200]. These provisions will help ensure that older

adults get the care that they want and need by supporting

physicians' efforts to identify their patients' goals for

medical care and by allowing them to help their patients to

select treatments that meet those goals. Too often, my

patients are not aware of their options, receive treatments

that will not meet their goals, or do not receive treatments

that they want and need. The result is unnecessary patient

and family suffering. These provisions will make a real

difference in addressing this problem.''--R. Sean Morrison,

MD, Mount Sinai--School of Medicine.

``. . . Conversations with patients and their loved ones

that clarify goals of care, surrogate medical decision

makers, and resuscitation preferences help physicians develop

plans of care that offer only therapies that will be

beneficial and consistent with a patient's wishes. These help

tremendously in ``focusing'' therapies on what the patient

would want, reassuring loved ones that care is consistent

with that desired, and limiting inadvertent application of

unwanted precious medical resources. They are win-win

experiences for patients, providers, and payers.''--Jeanne

Lewandowski, MD, Director of Palliative Medicine, St. John

Hospital and Medical Center.

``We cannot change that people for whom we care will die,

but we can give them the choice of how they wish to live at

the end of their life. Some prefer the support of a hospital,

some prefer the comfort of the familiar in their home. Some

tolerate extreme discomfort in order to be alert while others

will compromise their alertness for relief of pain. We cannot

know what people will choose without having the discussion

about their choices. Further support for these discussions

only improves the care we can tailor for each individual.

Thoughtful consideration of these issues takes time. Patients

deserve our full attention when we address these issues.''--

Elizabeth Weiss, MD, Bangor, Maine.

``Most Americans will live for some years with a serious

chronic condition such as heart failure or dementia before

dying, and most of that time will be covered by Medicare. The

responsibility falls to Medicare to ensure that this phase of

life is rewarding, comfortable, and meaningful by making sure

that citizens get the information to make choices that serve

us well--and making sure that the services we need then are

reliable and efficient. For far too long, Medicare has paid

attention mainly to the issues and treatments that matter

most earlier in life--Medicare has to take the lead in good

care for the last years of life. Only one American in five

dies before becoming eligible for Medicare. We have the

opportunity to build the care system we can trust to serve us

well in the last years of life, and we should seize it.''--

Joanne Lynn, MD, Author of The Handbook for Mortals.

The focus of health care should be what is the best care

for patients as related to their life values and personal

goals. As a physician, I often find that evidenced-based

clinical care falls short of the dignity and comfort when the

disease is non-curable and in time, result in death.

Empowering people to make the best decisions related to their

health care requires much discussion about their diseases. It

is, in fact, allowing people to make their own decisions, to

be heard, to be respected, and to be cared for to the best of

our abilities regardless of disease treatment and or symptom

management. I support the advance care planning provisions in

H.R. 3200 because health care decision-making is American. It

is the patient's right to make an informed decision and not

for the government to decide what choices to make.--Mark A.

Fox, MD, Florence, South Carolina.

It takes a great deal time to discuss advanced directives

with patients. This time spent should be compensated through

the Medicare program. Euthanasia is never part of the

discussion. Most physicians are ethically opposed to

euthanasia, either active or passive. It is also illegal in

98% of the states.--Martin A. Grossman, MD, New York.

Nurses

``As trusted patient advocates, the nursing members of the

Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association witness the

suffering experienced by patients and family members during

difficult times when advance care planning does not occur. We

are, therefore, very pleased to see the specific language of

this bill [H.R. 3200] assuring the patient's right to express

their wishes through open discussions and know this change

will indeed allow for improvement in patient care.''--Judy

Lentz, RN, MSN, NHA, CEO, Hospice and Palliative Nurses

Association.

``As an advanced practice nurse working in palliative care

I know we improve lives of patient and families daily. I can

not emphasized how critical advance care planning and

palliative care is to the American health care system and

fully support the provisions of H.R. 3200 that provide for

Medicare coverage of these important conversations between

patients and their health care providers.''--Patrick J.

Coyne, MSN, APRN Richmond, Virginia.

``What is important for health care reform and for the

ninety million Americans living with serious illness is that

care is focused on quality of life, management of the

symptoms that accompany chronic disease, and facilitation of

care that reflects patient goals and values. As a geriatric

nurse practitioner and palliative care program director, I

strongly support inclusion of advance care planning and

palliative care--the medical specialty that focuses on

preventing and treating the debilitating effects of serious

and chronic illness--as a solution to achieving quality

health care.''--Lyn Ceronsky, APRN, MS, Director, Palliative

Care Program at the Fairview Palliative Care Leadership

Center

patient advocates

``This measure would not only help people make the best

decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their

wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, and

even cruel, distortion--especially for any family that has

been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved

ones approaching the end of their lives. AARP is committed to

improving the quality, effectiveness, and affordability of

health care for our 40 million members and their families. We

will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and

their doctors from making their own health care decisions. We

will

also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested

interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order

to protect the status quo.''--John Rother, Executive Vice

President, AARP.

``The goal of this measure is to honor an individual's

choice to have or to limit life-sustaining treatments. By

developing tools to help people with Medicare and their

families make educated decisions about treatments, we can

assure that an individual's preferences for care are

respected.''--Paul Precht, Director of Policy and

Communications, Medicare Rights Center.

``In La Crosse, health professionals taking time to fully

inform their patients and their patient's family about future

choices better assures that the patient receives the best

care possible in light of that patient's health condition,

religious and cultural values and that these decisions are

really known by the family. Such a process benefits everyone

involved and better assures that our utilization of health

resources are actually matched with patient goals. This is a

far better method of distribution of resources than the

society deciding what is best for the patient.''--Bud Hammes,

Ph.D, Director of Medical Humanities, Gundersen Lutheran

Medical Foundation.

``The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship supports

the advance care planning provisions of H.R. 3200, which will

help patients make well-informed decisions about the care

they want and need at the end of life. A first step toward

patient-centered care is productive dialogue between patients

and their caregivers, communication that is not adequately

valued in the current health care system. The practice of

advance care planning gives patients more control over their

health care than currently exists.''--Ellen L. Stovall, 37-

Year Cancer Survivor and Acting President & CEO, National

Coalition for Cancer Survivorship.

``Make no mistake. Living wills and proxies (advance

directives) ensure that we--as opposed to just the doctors--

have a clear voice and a choice in our care should we reach

that most vulnerable stage where we can't advocate for

ourselves. This is why I've chosen to have a health care

proxy, and I applaud [Representatives] Levin and Blumenauer's

efforts on this matter.''--Joseph Rickards, Patient Advocate,

New York City.

faith community

``The Supportive Care Coalition is a nationwide

collaborative of 20 Catholic health care organizations that

assists Catholic health ministries in addressing the

physical, emotional, psychosocial and spiritual needs of

those suffering from life-threatening and chronic illness, as

well as those approaching the end of life. We have long

supported measures that improve palliative care and end-of-

life services, eliminate barriers and build a more connected

health care experience across the continuum of care. Central

to achieving patient-centered, quality care is strong

communication between patients and their health care

providers and for these reasons, we strongly support the

advance care planning provisions in H.R. 3200.''--Sister

Karin Dufault, SP, PhD, RN, Executive Director, Supportive

Care Coalition: Pursuing Excellence in Palliative Care.

``Reflection about the end of life, including elements in

medical care, is important for all of us. Such discernment

and discussion with loved ones can be enhanced by

conversations with thoughtful and caring physicians. Actual

decisions are always our own informed by our values and moral

perspectives.''--Msgr. Charles J. Fahey,

Madam Speaker, each year, long-duration idling of truck engines consumes over 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel and emits 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, 200,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen, and 5,000 tons of particulate matter into the air. Also, idling can increase engine maintenance costs, shorten engine life, adversely affect driver well-being, and create elevated noise levels. Some surveys show that trucks idle anywhere from 6-8 hours a day for as many as 250 to 300 days each year.

This legislation provides an important incentive to protect our environment, reduce fuel consumption, and ease the burden of compliance on the trucking community.

The Idling Reduction Tax Credit Act of 2009 provides a 50% credit for the purchase of an idling reduction unit, capped at $3,000. These units are part of the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Smartway'' program, which is geared toward improving energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and improving energy security for our transportation system.

According to the EPA, idling reduction units can reduce fuel consumption by 8% each year and generate additional air quality savings by eliminating up to 2,400 hours of idling time each year. Unfortunately, these units can cost up to $8,500. While there are loan programs available for some truckers to help defray this cost, most are unable to take advantage of those programs. The Idling Reduction Tax Credit Act would make the federal government a full partner in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why health care reform is so hard, look at the rhetoric surrounding efforts to help senior citizens and their families cope with end-of-life decisions. It has morphed into something that has been, I think, rather

sad. I was both angry and put off, I must say, in the references to section 1233. Today in the Washington Times they cite a misrepresentation by Republican leadership that talk about this leading the path down to government-encouraged euthanasia.

Yesterday, we heard one of our Republican colleagues talk about actually having the government--I want to be careful about this--that ``seniors being in a position of being put to death by their government.''

Mr. Speaker, looking at this legislation that is a result of a bipartisan effort to allow senior citizens and their families to know the choices that face them, nothing mandatory, no government bureaucrat, simply giving them the choice to have information. Shame on people who use senior citizens as a prop to try to scare people.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule.

This is serious business, one of the most important bills that we will be examining.

I wanted to call attention to two items that I had hoped to be able to be debating here on the floor dealing with restoring the environmental restoration funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force and defensewide accounts for fiscal year 2009 levels to increase the much overlooked, formerly-used defense sites by $49 million.

Environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, are areas that simply get overlooked. The committee, in its wisdom, accepted levels that were recommended by the administration, but that doesn't make them right. We are in a situation now where we are

looking at not just decades, but far into the future to be able to clean up the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances and military toxics.

I am concerned that we are going to be losing money in the long run. It is my intention to work diligently with the committee in conference to see if we can make the adjustments, if we can work with the administration that they make this a higher priority because every State in the Union is burdened with this toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances and environmentally dangerous items. The military wants to clean it up. We need to give them the resources to do so.

I have been listening to the colloquy here about process with my good friends on both sides of the aisle. I am hopeful that we will be able in the months ahead to be able to roll up our sleeves and work together. There is never really a good time to fix this, but I hope that we will be able to return to a more regular order in the next cycle. I will look forward to working with friends on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this is smooth, everybody has their voice, and that we are working to respect one another.

I listened to things yesterday that were deeply disturbing on the floor of the House as, ironically, I was in the Chair, and I heard things that I thought were, frankly, over the line. But I understand frustrations build on both sides.

I would like to finish.

With due respect, I would like to finish my thought and then I will yield to you on your time.

What I wanted to say was that I am hopeful that we can sort of take a little air out of the balloon.

One of the first things I did when I came here right after the government shutdown in a special election was to be part of an effort to have----

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

It was a part of an effort where we had sort of a bipartisan civility caucus where we had conferences and we worked to try and lower the temperature here. I don't think it's something that's going to happen today or tomorrow, but I want to say that I am hopeful that we can pull out of this nosedive that we're hearing with some of the heated rhetoric on some of the health care issues.

I heard the gentleman talk about open rules as it relates to appropriations. I think it's part of a great big package. I think we all need to be working together to cooperate on this. And it's something that I care deeply about and look forward, after we get out of here and get back home, to be grounded at home, as we come back in the fall, that there are things that we can work on to make progress.

I would be happy to yield.

Does the gentleman want a colloquy?

I understand the gentleman's frustration, but I sat on the other side and listened and had things that our people----

I appreciate the courtesy of my good friend permitting me to speak on behalf of this.

I listened to my friend from Arizona. The fact is the last bill was paid for, but because of the Republican refusal to right-size the trust fund, it was scaled down. But it was paid for. It wasn't right-sized for America. Mr. Oberstar and the committee are working to try to do this.

I hope this is the last time we come to the floor to deal with the short-term deficit in the Highway Trust Fund; but, unfortunately, we are going to come back again. Mr. Oberstar and his Chair, my good friend Mr. DeFazio, have been working for months on a new vision for transportation; and I hope we have that on the floor sooner rather than later.

Along with this is the notion of how we squeeze more value out of each Federal dollar invested. That is part of the work of the new Department of Transportation. It is part of what the committee is working on, and we as Congress need to be involved with that.

New vision, more value, but, frankly, we are going to need more money. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993. There aren't the resources available to meet what we are seeing in every community across the country. That is why there is a consensus that is building, as Mr. Neal said, from the chamber of commerce, to the garden club, to the Sierra Club, unions, environmentalists, local government officials, Republican and Democrat alike, who say come forward with a long-term funding proposal.

What we are going to have to do sometime this decade is increase the gas tax for inflation. What we are going to have to do sometime this decade is have a new mechanism in place that is a true user fee that will enable us to match the people who use the roads or the people who benefit with the financing.

This is within our capacity. And this is one area where I hope that we can get past some of the partisan bickering.

Thank you, sir.

I hope that every Member will take the time to go back to their districts this next month and talk to the local chamber of commerce, talk to local government, talk to local business people that are attempting to solve these problems, and find out the support there is for Congress to be able to move forward with a broader vision for finance. It is there, if we will do it. And if we do, it is going to have more long-term impact on the financial health of this country than anything else that we will do.

I urge people to do their homework at home so they can come back and

support the financing that is necessary for the long-term vision that Mr. Oberstar and Mr. DeFazio will give us in the months ahead.

Madam Speaker, we in Congress and the new administration have been given a gift of serving in a time of opportunity to solve some of the long-festering problems with the American health care system. One opportunity to achieve true reform is to provide greater value to patients

when they are most vulnerable, when loved ones are facing the last few weeks of life.

Today, these patients have a wide variety of treatment options available. We can test them, hook them up to machines, poke them with needles, perform all sorts of heroic measures, and where appropriate, we can accomplish amazing results with virtually no cost to older citizens. Yet, when it comes time to help people understand what their choices are, to have their questions answered, to be able to shape treatment for what their values and interests might be, we fail them utterly.

H.R. 3200, health care reform, does have a simple solution to empower people and their families. Yet, this carefully crafted provision has been attacked by some opponents of reform, for example, Betsy McCaughey in The Wall Street Journal claiming wildly that somehow this would be mandatory, that it would be done by a government assigned physician, with the threat of coercing senior citizens.

A simple reading of the provision shows that that's simply not the case. Like all other Medicare provisions, it would be voluntary. It would by the physician of one's choice. There's nothing mandatory about it.

It has led the American Association of Retired People to issue a statement about this opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. ``Ms. McCaughey's criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end- of-life care.

``This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, even cruel, distortion, especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.''

The AARP makes clear, ``We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions. We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo. Profits should never be allowed to come before people in this debate.''

And sadly, it's not just right-wing pundits who are involved with an effort of distortion. I would hope that my friends in the Republican leadership would reconsider their ill-advised attempt to equate this bipartisan effort to empower families with a slippery slope on pressuring seniors or even euthanasia. This is simply categorically false and destructive.

The provision in question was carefully considered. It was the result of real bipartisan cooperation to help families. Indeed, some of the most moving comments in our committee deliberations came from Republican colleagues who talked about the concerns that they faced with their families in this difficult end-of-life situation and how we needed to do better.

Madam Speaker, there are lots of areas where we can disagree as we're dealing with health care reform. By all means, let's debate and argue over areas of genuine disagreement, but let's not attack this long- overdue assistance to families facing the difficult situation at the end of life. Let's not attack it. Let's embrace it. American families deserve no less.

Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This bill strengthens our economy and our communities by improving education, expanding job training, and strengthening our health and social services safety nets. I appreciate strategic investments made in Oregon and around the country to make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. There are two important pieces of this bill I'd like to highlight: funding for public broadcasting and the University Sustainability Program.

Nationwide, the economic downturn has struck businesses and individuals hard. The free, noncommercial, cultural and educational programming services provided by public broadcasting are now more valuable than ever. Many communities rely on public broadcasting stations as a sole source of news and information. States and local governments use the public broadcasting system for both day-to-day and emergency communications. Stations, which receive most of their funding from donations, have been hard hit by the recession as well. I am pleased that this bill includes $40 million in fiscal stabilization grants, 100 percent of which will go directly to stations in need, to shore up these local stations and local jobs. And I appreciate the continued advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting included as well, which helps ensure broadcasters can provide continuity of service and plan budgets adequately.

Public broadcasting connects people with their local community, their nation, and their world in a way that no other outlet can or does. Because American citizens have come to rely on these services and programs, I am pleased Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to support public broadcasting.

In addition, on behalf of the thirty members of Congress who requested funding for the University Sustainability Program, I would like to thank the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Committee for recognizing the important role that this program will play in helping revitalize the American economy. I'm proud that the committee has recognized the need for credible, multi disciplinary, innovative education centers to help our universities prepare students for the economy of tomorrow.

There is a growing awareness that transitioning to a green economy presents a tremendous opportunity for those who embrace it--and a great risk for those who ignore it. Making this transition promises to create a new engine to drive America's economy, achieve greater energy security, and reduce impacts from global warming--and reduce chances of losing American jobs to other countries which charge ahead and take the lead. This program will provide competitive grants for the development, implementation and evaluation of sustainability programs in American colleges and universities. It was created in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, based on legislation that I introduced in 2007, the Higher Education Sustainability Act.

Industry leaders in energy management, green building design and materials, waste management, toxics management, and sustainable transportation are hungry for a well-trained workforce trained in the latest technologies and approaches. A recent study of Fortune 500 CEOs reported that, while 90 percent agreed that ``sustainable development is important to their company's future,'' only 30 percent say they have the ``skills, information, and personnel to meet the challenge.''

It's not surprising that company leaders feel this way. The United States lags far behind other countries when it comes to preparing our students to understand the environmental problems we face and come up with innovative technological and organizational ways to attack them. According to the International Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. ranks 34th out of 57 developed countries when it comes to students' knowledge about the environment and environment- related issues, behind Estonia, Croatia and the Slovak and Czech Republics. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab, the major barriers to a more rapid adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency in America are insufficient skills and training.

The University Sustainability Program is supported by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, the

American Association of Community Colleges, Associations of College Unions International, Campaign for Environmental Literacy, National Council for Science and the Environment, Nike, National Wildlife Federation, Association of College and University Housing Officers International, Mary Kay, Inc, Earth Day Network, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, American Academy of Religion, and many more companies, organizations and leaders.

I strongly support this bill and hope that the Senate will also include this much needed funding to support universities as they work to overcome some of the barriers to providing real, hands-on, environmental education to prepare students for the changing economy.

Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago I heard the minority whip profess interest in working with the Democrats to reform the health care system. Yet, I'm sad to say that the minority whip, the minority leader have been part of an effort to deal with fear and misrepresentation, attacking bipartisan legislation that would have done precisely that, reform the health care system.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, there are some here who simply are not expressing the sense of urgency that most of us feel from the American people, a sense of urgency about fixing a broken health care system that costs too much, that produces wildly uneven results, and leaves too many outside the system of coverage, and others, with health insurance, at risk. We cannot continue along this path. Americans are not getting the help they need, even if they have insurance coverage. I was, I must say, disappointed, to say the very least, to see the attack on bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to help reform the health care system.

In a statement from the minority leader, and with the whip, and Mr. McCotter, there is an allegation that somehow there is legislation in the health care draft that may place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign that may start us down a ``treacherous path towards government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Had the minority leader, and his whip, and the conference Chair bothered to check how that legislation came to be enacted into our health care legislation, they would have found out that it was work of a bipartisan group of Ways and Means Committee members. There were Republicans cosponsoring it along with Democrats. We had spirited discussion dealing with the fact that too often senior citizens and their families are not given the information they need to be able to cope with the most serious situation any of us will ever face as we have a loved one move into the end of his or her life.

We discussed how Medicare would pay for tests to hook people up, to poke them, to run them through machines, to have them on ventilators, to do all sorts of things; but it will not pay a health care professional to sit down with that patient, with that family, and let them know what they expect, answer their questions, help them know what their choices are. We had examples of committee members talk about their loved ones, and I would say, Republican committee members talk about how their loved ones didn't get that type of help at the end of life and actually were subjected to things that they thought were not in the best interests of their loved one. If they had a choice, they wouldn't have done it over again, and it didn't prolong their life, it actually made them less comfortable.

We're seeking to change that, to be able to adjust Medicare so that it speaks to the needs of American seniors and their families, that they're given the attention they need to prepare for this difficult period of time. There's nothing in this legislation that would force people to have consultations. There's nothing that would force them to sign advance directives. It's not going to choose a health care professional by the government and force it on them.

It's the type of sad, inflammatory rhetoric that suggests that people aren't serious about health care reform, not serious about meeting the needs of American families, but, rather, they're playing political games. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation that we've been working on for more than 6 months that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of American families.

The American public, especially our senior citizens, deserve our best efforts to meet their needs, not treat them like political footballs. I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider, and that we'll be able to enact provisions like this to help our senior citizens.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Transportation estimates that the Highway Trust Fund will run short of funds this August, and that Congress will have to transfer $5-7 billion to it to avoid a shortfall. This shortfall is occurring because the gas tax is becoming obsolete. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, they increase the demand on our transportation system, without contributing as much to its maintenance. The current revenue system has lost 33% of its purchasing power during the last 15 years, today generating only two- thirds of the revenues needed to maintain current levels of investment. Until we tie our transportation revenues to our transportation demands, this situation will worsen.

Failure to adequately fund transportation infrastructure imposes huge costs on American citizens and businesses:

Congestion costs urban Americans 4.2 billion hours and 2.8 billion unnecessary gallons of fuel each year; expressed in dollar terms this is $87.2 billion, or $757 per traveler.

Roughly 40,000 people every year are killed on our streets and highways, with 2.5 million more injured, at a staggering annual economic cost to society.

Higher transportation costs and higher inventory carrying costs-- partially attributable to an unreliable transportation system--have pushed logistics costs to nearly 10% of GDP.

Failure to act puts America on hold, when we should be putting America to work.

It is time we sought out innovative solutions to this challenging problem. The Oregon Department of Transportation successfully tested a model where they charged drivers for the number of miles they traveled rather than the fuel they consumed. The test was convenient for drivers, protected personal privacy, and proved easily administrable. This concept was also highlighted by two blue ribbon commissions established in the prior transportation authorization. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission noted that a vehicle miles traveled charge is ``the most promising alternative revenue measure'' to our existing gas tax, while the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission reported that ``a charge for each mile driven . . . has emerged as the consensus choice for the future.'' Both commissions found that this system was efficient at raising revenue, closely linked system demand to revenues, and could win broad public support.

My legislation calls on the Department of the Treasury to study the viability of this revenue source in every State. While evaluating mileage based revenue sources, Treasury will ensure the system protects privacy and is simple to administer. It will also convene working groups to address the most complex aspects of this transition, including road use, demand management and climate change, and technological needs. Finally, the bill creates a grant program to ensure the necessary technology is available.

The condition of our national highway and transit systems and the maintenance of our infrastructure, and the investments that we make in these systems, touch the life of every American, strengthen our economy, and protect our environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, Americans have made it clear that they want transportation options. In a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, 52% of Americans support increased funding for bike, pedestrian and public transportation programs. On average, transportation costs are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. This impacts on business owners, as employees spend over 4.2 billion hours stuck in traffic each year--averaging up to almost a week per year per employee. If more Americans commute using alternative modes of transportation, we will see improvements in the economy, workplace productivity, and quality of life.

In order to help communities provide families with more choices and level the playing field for people who want to be less auto-dependent, the federal government must be a better partner in these efforts.

This is why I am introducing the ``Green Routes to Work Act of 2009,'' which will provide consumers with commuting choices. The bill will help companies provide their employees with options, improve service to deal with increased demand and ensure that the federal government leads by example.

As gas prices increase, many Americans are already changing their daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel- efficient models. Through the incentives in this bill, the federal government can support consumers who wish to use environmentally friendly, active transportation modes that save them money in the long run, such as public transit, carpooling, biking, walking and telecommuting.

For too long, the federal government has supported commuters who drove to work, but has not helped those who use other methods of transportation. The passage of legislation last year to allow employers to provide transportation fringe benefits to bike commuters was a good first step. But with a changing climate, expanding waistlines and more congested roadways, it's time for the federal government to become more aggressive in helping to provide choices. This not only makes environmental and public health sense, it makes economic sense: at $4 a gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion

each year on gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an average of $1,825 in auto-related costs, conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to support businesses in their effort to provide choices for commuting employees.

It's been fascinating watching some of my friends parade to the floor making some pretty outrageous claims. The most recent one was, my good friend from Florida suggesting that by having the administration follow the law, that if the cost-of-living has not increased sufficiently, so that there isn't a cost-of-living increase for Social Security, somehow this is an administration assault on senior citizens. This is a rather bizarre notion when we think about their record when they were in charge, seeking to undercut formulas like the one in question to move them back in the other direction.

When it comes to health care, when our friends on the other side of the aisle, strong-armed their prescription Medicare drug coverage program into

law; did not seek concessions from the pharmaceutical industry; created the ``doughnut hole'' that has created a massive gap in coverage and no mechanism to pay for it.

What we're doing at this point is trying to move forward in a constructive fashion to give the American people choices, follow the law, save money, and improve the quality of care.

One issue that is too often out of sight and out of mind is the quality and the condition of our drinking water and wastewater pipes under the ground.

Just 6 months ago, we all watched in shock as rescue workers airlifted people from vehicles caught in a massive rush of water caused by a water main rupture on River Road just outside of Washington, D.C., because of the failure of a single, corroded pipe installed over 40 years ago. In fact, 72,000 miles of sewer main and water pipe are over 80 years of age.

This morning, there was a water main break that closed 23rd Street at I, near the George Washington Hospital.

The EPA estimates that American communities suffered more than 240,000 water main breaks last year. Combined with overflowing combined sewer systems causing contamination, property damage, disruption in water supply and, often, massive traffic jams.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates an average of 6 billion gallons of water is lost every day through leakage--enough to fill over 9,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The Engineers have given our Nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a D-minus grade in their most recent report--sadly, a grade that was not improved over the report from 5 years ago.

The House of Representatives recognized the need to upgrade water infrastructure earlier this year, passing H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act, which would update and reauthorize Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds. But they simply don't have enough money.

The EPA's most recent estimate is there is an over $500 billion gap between current investment and projected needs over the next 20 years. Surface and air transportation infrastructure, while facing their own challenges, at least have a dedicated source of funding. Water does not.

In the spring of 2005, the famous Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, released a poll that showed Americans would support a sustainable, dedicated source of water funding for infrastructure.

He found the public sees clean water as an even higher priority than investments made in transportation and airways--71 percent prioritized water above other infrastructure. It is time to stop talking about it and do something: creating a dedicated firewall trust fund for water infrastructure.

This afternoon, I will introduce legislation to create this trust fund financed by a number of funding mechanisms that are simple, equitable and adequate for $10 billion a year. The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act will establish a trust fund to finance clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Most of the money will go through the State revolving funds for sewage and drinking water improvements.

The financing mechanisms in the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act will include a fee based on water-based beverages, products that are disposed of in wastewater, pharmaceutical products, and corporate profits. These fees would be assessed at the manufacturer level so they will be easy to administer and will have a minimal impact on the consumer. They will be at a level that is so low that it would not place the entire burden on any one industry or group of consumers. With a mix of funding, everyone will contribute to a solution from which everyone will benefit from.

I am pleased that the legislation already has a diverse support of stakeholders from the Associated General Contractors, American Rivers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and Rural Community Assistance Partnership, and a wide range of bipartisan original cosponsors, including Congressmen Norm Dicks, Steve LaTourette, Michael Simpson, and Thomas Petri, representing a base of support from thoughtful, bipartisan legislators.

While the funding question is always complicated, the public is with us. In January of this year, pollster Frank Luntz released a new poll-- and remember, he is the famous Republican pollster--finding that a nearly unanimous 94 percent of Americans are concerned about the state of our Nation's infrastructure. He found that this concern cuts across all regions of the country: urban, rural, suburban. He found that 84 percent of the public wants the Federal Government to spend more money to improve infrastructure, and that 81 percent of Americans are personally prepared to pay 1 percent more in taxes for the cause.

The need is clear. The public is supportive. My hope is that my colleagues will join me in a solution that will

make all of our communities more livable, and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a resolution honoring the Government Services Administration (GSA) for their sixty years of hard work and dedication to federal employees. On June 30, 1949, President Harry S. Truman signed legislation to create GSA and streamline the administrative work of the federal government. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 took effect almost 60 years ago today, on July 1, 1949.

GSA consolidated the National Archives Establishment, the Federal Works Agency and its Public Buildings Administration, the Bureau of Federal Supply, the Office of Contract Settlement and the War Assets Administration. GSA was tasked with administering supplies and providing workplaces for federal employees.

GSA's original mission was to dispose of war surplus goods, manage and store government records, handle emergency preparedness, and stockpile strategic supplies for wartime. GSA also regulated the sale of office supplies to federal agencies.

Today, through the Public Buildings Service, Federal Acquisition Service, various staff offices and 11 regional offices nationwide, GSA provides workspace to more than 1 million federal civilian workers. It oversees the preservation of more than 408 historic buildings. It facilitates the purchase of high-quality, low-cost goods and services from quality commercial vendors.

GSA has a history of providing environmentally sound or sustainable products and services that reduce waste and pollution, and providing federal employees with healthy work environments. GSA's efforts to design, build and manage federal properties in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner helps reduce energy consumption by the federal government.

Today, GSA touches the lives of nearly every U.S. citizen by providing goods, services, and workplaces at best value to its federal agency clients. The GSA has worked to ensure that the federal government leads by example--promoting fiscal fitness and environmental responsibility throughout the federal government.

As we mark its 60th anniversary, the GSA is playing a critical role in revitalizing our economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $5.5 billion for GSA building projects and $300 million for energy efficient motor vehicles. Just as importantly, GSA is assisting other federal agencies in meeting their goals under the legislation, and has used its technical expertise to support Recovery.gov as part of the government's commitment to openness and transparency.

As GSA enters its seventh decade of service, it does so with a new slogan: ``A Legacy of Service, a Pursuit of Excellence,'' that articulates the agency's storied history and continued excellence on behalf of its customers and American citizens.

I am proud to offer this resolution honoring the men and women who work to keep our government running.