Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

I am pleased that this bill is being named after Senator McCain. It has been my privilege to work with him in one particular area: dealing with the people who worked with us in Afghanistan and Iraq on special immigrant visas.

Along with the late Senator Kennedy, over the last 10 years, we worked to try and help these people who put their lives on the line to help our forces as guides, as interpreters, who are now being left to the tender mercies of people with long memories, like the Taliban and al-Qaida. Their lives are at risk, as are their family members'. We still have 17,000 applicants who want to have these visas to come to the United States to safety.

I am disappointed that we have been unable to have the funding for additional visa allocations. I appreciate that due to an accounting convention, this would be at the expense of other important things that are being fought for.

But I would hope that we are able to focus on what the costs would have been to us if we didn't have those people helping us in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would have been far more expensive. And like you, I have met with people whose lives were saved because they put themselves at risk, and we are leaving them behind.

My friend, Kirk Johnson, wrote a book: ``To Be a Friend Is Fatal: The

Fight to Save the Iraqis America Left Behind.'' And for these people, being a friend of the United States is fatal. Their lives are at risk every day.

I hope, as this process goes forward, we can either deal with the accounting convention or try and find some money to rescue these people.

Mr. Speaker, every day there is a head-spinning moment with someone who is willing to push the Presidential powers to the point of abuse.

Trump is undermining freedom of the press with unprecedented attacks.

He cast doubt on the integrity and competence of United States intelligence services.

He has an administration that is manipulating the data of a dishonest agency evaluation of the impact of monuments status that protects hundreds of thousands of acres and endangered species like the magnificent sage-grouse.

Today's outrage is a plan to use the Commodity Credit Corporation to funnel another $12 billion for a bailout of American farmers. You know, most farmers and ranchers don't want a government bailout. They would like to be able to farm. They would like to be able to market. They would like to be able to sell their products without the threat of Trump's trade war.

Soon after Obama took office, inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression, we have seen steady private sector employment growth for 9 consecutive years. Now, after inheriting a strong and growing economy, Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party are threatening this progress with a trade war that increases prices for American consumers, for American businesses, and is raising their costs.

It is hard to keep track of everything. Trump is involved with an all-out war on the Affordable Care Act. After utterly failing in his promise--remember, he was going to provide better healthcare for more people at lower cost. Who knew healthcare was complicated. Instead, his administration is raising insurance costs for millions in the individual market while destabilizing insurance for the rest of us.

There were promises of tax reform, making it simpler and fairer. Instead, we have hopelessly complicated the Tax Code. We have given massive tax cuts for many people who didn't need them. We are going to be watching for

taxes being raised on homeowners across the country over the next 10 years.

And, as a result of these actions for the budget and the taxes, we have doubled the budget deficit this year, with the prospect of deficits every year of a trillion dollars or more as far as the eye can see.

After Republicans have cut over $2 trillion in taxes since 2001 for just the top 1 percent, what is the solution our Republican friends are offering to deal with the consequences? Look at the budget they just passed. Mr. Speaker, $2 trillion of cuts in programs for everybody else: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act.

At some point, the public is going to catch on to what is happening to them. In fact, maybe they already are. Maybe that is the reason that the Republican tax cuts are less popular than Bill Clinton's tax increase.

It is time that we take a step back, while we still can, and get back on the appropriate fiscal course. It does not mean trade wars and providing money for people who don't need it.

Let's allow the economy to function without gimmicks and bailouts.

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against the 39th short term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program that did not provide any reform whatsoever.

I've been working to improve the flood insurance program for over 20 years. The current program is ever deeper in debt, does not provide the right incentives to move people out of harm's way, and misses an opportunity for at least a small set of incremental improvements to save money and make America's families and businesses safer.

I know this extension will pass but I want to register in the strongest possible terms my insistence that we get on with the business of having a sustainable safe flood insurance program that is so important to so many Americans. The time to start this is now and this short-term extension fails that test.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here with Ms. Jenkins, moving forward on this legislation. It represents an opportunity for us to deal with a series of, as she mentioned, bipartisan ideas, relatively simple, to enhance service delivery.

I state from the outset that I am troubled that we were not able to provide opportunities to pay for these. They carry a cost. In committee, even though I thought they were a good idea, I voted against some of them because they were rather expensive.

In the aggregate, these are things, moving forward, that will improve healthcare, and I am hopeful that, as we move along the process, we can find some ways to offset the costs involved.

Some of us have philosophical questions about the role of HSAs and how it fits overall, but this legislation will make key consumer- friendly improvements to our existing system. Direct primary care medical homes are an important example of successful delivery reforms that will become easier to access under this legislation.

DPC arrangements offer individuals access to comprehensive primary care and prevention services in a medical home setting for a flat monthly fee, as opposed to concierge services that some people have in mind. Most of these practices typically charge a low monthly fee, perhaps $50 to $100, in most cases, and they serve low- and

moderate-income patients. These fees support the delivery of high- quality, coordinated care by providing better healthcare upfront in primary care settings.

DPC practices reduce unnecessary hospital and specialty care, as well as administrative expenses. This empowers the doctor-patient relationship, enabling providers to resist financial incentives that distort the decisionmaking process in primary care.

It also reduces the conveyor belt process, where people are typically shuttled into the office in 8-minute increments. This is not the case in direct primary care. It is not uncommon for appointments to last half an hour or even an hour. So they build a better relationship with patients, and they are able to better understand and address healthcare needs.

By offering a high level of access to primary care, evidence shows that direct primary care medical homes improve health outcomes and reduce costs. Today, DPC medical homes serve individuals of all ages and income in at least 47 States.

This legislation simplifies existing IRS regulations and clarifies that direct primary care medical homes are qualified health expenses-- medical services--and not health plans.

I personally question the IRS ruling. We have debated with them, but we have lost that. We fix it with this legislation.

As more individuals and employers seek to utilize the direct primary care delivery model, it is important that this outdated tax barrier not get in the way of patients accessing this successful model.

The legislation will allow HSA plans to cover onsite employee clinics. Think for a moment about the nursing stations that we have here in the House of Representatives to provide that service. They can offer physical exams, immunization, over-the-counter drugs, drug testing, hearing and vision screening, and other minor primary care preventive services to help employers assemble a benefits package for their employees that is both practical and can give them a competitive edge.

Allowing employees to access this basic healthcare service at work means it doesn't disrupt the worksite. It is more convenient for them; it is better for the employer.

Another key consumer change made by this bill is to recognize that employees change jobs. This bill allows individuals to streamline the conversion of a medical savings account, flexible savings account, or HSA so they won't lose savings when they change jobs. These reasonable changes will help consumers make the most of their employer-sponsored coverage.

Now--make no mistake--while this legislation will certainly help some consumers, it doesn't atone for the systematic sabotage that we have seen of the Affordable Care Act by the administration and some of my Republican colleagues. By zeroing out the mandate penalty, estimates are that insurance premiums will rise 15 percent. None of these bills before us today undo that premium hike that is visited upon our constituents unnecessarily.

These premium increases are coming after Republicans gave insurance companies billions in tax cuts in their tax bills. Republican attempts to expand HSAs is no replacement for the Affordable Care Act's financial assistance. Attempts to expand HSAs are a continuation of a platform of shifting families into health plans which provide fewer health benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs, while providing greater tax benefits for those who need them least.

HSAs and high-deductible healthcare plans shift costs to consumers without bending the cost curve or addressing underlying costs of medical care in the United States. I think we can and should do better.

For instance, the President has promised action on lowering prescription drug costs. These bills today do nothing to lower the cost of drugs consumers buy, and seek to move more people into plans that provide only catastrophic coverage, exposing more people to pay the full freight of drug price hikes.

Now, we have legislation before our committees that could move forward to do something about this, and I am saddened, despite Trump's talking about it, that we have really not taken action to do so. And we could, on a bipartisan basis, if we were enabled to do so.

The collection of bills on the floor this week will reduce Federal revenues by about $90 billion and will do nothing to reduce the number of uninsured people that will increase as a result of policy changes my Republican friends have done in this Congress. Their sabotage efforts under the Trump administration have caused millions of people to lose coverage, and millions more will do so in the future.

Now we are seeing, in the budget proposal, my Republican friends proposing to cut Medicare and Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion to try and pay for the deficits that have been exaggerated by tax cuts they have enacted. The bills that we will be considering, especially the next one, will only add fuel to that fire.

So, I am pleased that we have got some bipartisan pieces that we can move forward. I am hopeful that we don't abandon a sense of fiscal responsibility to be able to work together to pay for them, and I hope that we can encourage some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to dial back the assault on the Affordable Care Act, especially by the administration, so that we don't destabilize the system further, drive up costs, and increase the number of uninsured.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, author of several of these reform provisions, and a champion of value over volume in healthcare, as well as fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond briefly.

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 2009. The very month President Obama took office, there were 700,000 jobs lost. There was great fear that we were going to have a complete collapse of the auto industry. There was a whole range of things that we were in an emergency situation on, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

As it was, a major portion of that bill was tax cuts to try and stimulate the economy. I do point out that as we move forward, our healthcare bill was entirely paid for, and that is what we need to get back to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a champion of healthcare, dealing with disparities in the healthcare system, a champion for balance and vision, and I appreciate him being here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I take modest exception to the notion that somehow the Affordable Care Act failed. It represents the largest expansion of healthcare that we have seen in decades. It is so popular and important that, when my Republican friends attempted to repeal it, something they have been working on for 7 years, it blew up in their face. Even President Trump said their bill was mean. And it continues, even though they are working to dismantle it bolt by bolt.

I would hope that we will return to sanity to be able to work to be able to move forward on things like some of the elements in this bill here today that we agree upon that could move us forward rather than the continued battle over the notion that the Affordable Care Act is something that needs to be destroyed. The American people deserve better.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for us to have this discussion. It has been fun working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) on this notion of direct primary care. It is a simple notion that runs athwart IRS regulations. I still don't fully understand why these should be classified as ``health plan'' rather than ``payment for service.''

But, nonetheless, we were able to work together on a bipartisan basis to move this forward. It is not expensive. The score is less than $2 billion out of $90 billion that we are tossing around here, and I personally believe that it will result in substantial savings in order to provide more efficient coverage.

But I must say that I am a little troubled by the continuing assault on what we are doing with the fiscal future of this country.

We just saw the latest reports that because of what my Republican friends have done with the budget and with the tax bill, we have doubled the deficit this year. It is doubled.

Now, there were complaints from my friend from Kansas about deficit spending when President Obama took office. Remember, he was only President for one-third of that month and lost 700,000 jobs. The economy was in free fall. Absolutely we took steps: cutting taxes and moving in areas to try and strengthen parts of the economy that was posing huge problems for people across the board. And this was broadly supported by people in business. Economic experts actually agree that probably we didn't do enough, and that slowed the economic recovery. But the economy has recovered.

We have seen 9 consecutive years of private sector job growth. That is what Trump inherited: over 7 years of job growth. The economy was strong. It wasn't in free fall. Yet, in that strong position, we are doubling the deficit this year. We are looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

And we just had the President announce that he wants to spend $12 billion more, not because we are in economic free fall, but because his ruinous trade policies have resulted in losses to the farming sector. They are going to provide extra government bailout, not because farmers want it, but because they are being injured by these ruinous trade policies.

There was a time when most of my Republican friends would rise up in opposition. It is certain that if these were offered by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, they would be screaming at the top of their lungs. Most of them are strangely silent now, but it is another $12 billion to try to fix a problem that Trump has created by starting trade wars with our friends, trying to punish China, and, in fact, we are punishing our allies. And somehow auto imports are national security.

This is embarrassing that we are in this situation. But it is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. We are weakening ourselves economically, while we pick fights with our allies, like Canada and the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, on top of all of this, we are going to advance legislation today that have some nuggets of positive things. I have worked with my colleagues on some of them. There are important advances, but they are coming at a price of $90 billion added to the deficit, without even an attempt to work with us to offset. I think we could have offset the direct primary care piece that we are talking about here. It is relatively small potatoes compared to $90 billion, and compared to $12 billion for tariff relief for a trade war we didn't need.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the conversation about some of these items. I think it is important to spotlight them. But I am hopeful that we are able to return to fiscal stability, not having bailouts for farmers that they don't want and wouldn't need if we had a rational tariff policy. I am hopeful that we are not going to have a parade of other things that undermine the Affordable Care Act and add unnecessary costs to the deficit.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote yesterday on H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act (Roll no. 366), I would have voted ``aye.''

Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4881, the Precision Agriculture

Connectivity Act (Roll no. 367), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, it seems every morning we are greeted by another outrage from the Trump administration. Today, we find that the Department of the Interior deliberately manipulated the information surrounding the decision to amend the boundaries of national monuments. They withheld information about the benefits of the monument designation, benefits for Native Americans, for wildlife, for the local economy, and for the environment.

The only way we found out about this manipulation is because they inadvertently disclosed the entire memorandum, exposed for everybody to see how they blatantly manipulated the process. But this is just another example.

This last week, we have seen attacks on our long-time friends and allies in Europe, undermining the NATO alliance, questioning the integrity of our American intelligence service, and assaulting American business and consumers with this ill-advised trade war and the tariffs, which are just taxes on American families. This is, in part, due to the fact that we are not getting any pushback on these outrages from most Republicans in Congress, not standing up to Trump for America and for our values.

It appears that most of my Republican friends are held hostage to the most extreme elements in their districts. They are given enhanced influence because of the practice of partisan gerrymandering, drawing boundaries to enhance the power of the Republican majority, so you only have to worry about voters in the primary.

I have long supported independent commissions to draw these boundaries, have proposed legislation federally. Although there appears to be little appetite in Congress, luckily, people out in the States are taking matters into their own hands. We are watching citizen initiatives in Michigan, in Utah, and in Colorado. Voters, this year, will have a chance to vote on fair and honest redistricting if the U.S. Chamber and the Republican Party are not able to block it from being voted on, as they are trying to do in Michigan.

When voters, again, pick the politicians instead of politicians picking the voters, it is much more likely that Congress will do its job. Mr. Speaker, until we get fair districts, we will have to rely on renewed, energized voter engagement to elect a Congress that will do its job.

The good news is that the evidence all across America is that people are responding to a new generation of political leadership. They are getting involved in unprecedented numbers--more voters, more activism. They are going to elect, as leaders, new Members who will provide the accountability to hold in check this reckless administration.

It is too bad it looks like we will have to wait for the election for the next Congress to do its job.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I am pleased to follow my friend from California (Mr. Royce).

This is troubling for me, his reference here to 38 extensions without reform. I have been working on this for 20 years. This is the 41st time, and we had one back in 2004 with my friend, Doug Bereuter, where we had some small steps, but they were anticipatory of being able to make greater reforms.

I am vexed that we continue to move forward and dodge some hard facts. We are subsidizing too much for people who grow complacent.

I am concerned about affordability. There are things we can do to deal with affordability, but that doesn't mean to have massive subsidization for people who don't need it and, in fact, encourage people to be in harm's way and, in fact, after they are flooded out, to go back, putting them in harm's way again.

There are simple, commonsense steps we can take. There were things that Mr. Royce and I had that are sort of the lowest common denominator. I am deeply troubled that we are going to do this again without dealing with the problems.

I just want to say that it is not just financial hardship and it is not just wasting of money. Our failure to reform the Flood Insurance Program puts people at risk. Every one of these massive events shows that people will go back, trying to deal with a family member; they are dealing with their business, or they are dealing with a pet.

People die because we fail to take steps to reform and make it work right.

I appreciate the ranking member, the chair, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Royce. There is a path forward. This bill is not the path forward.

I don't want it to lapse. I don't want disruption. But it is hard for me to sit here and vote ``yes'' for something that doesn't do the minimum. We don't do anybody any favors along this path.

Mr. Speaker, Oregon has been on the cutting edge of advancing LGBTQ rights, or ``gay rights'' as they were known over 40 years ago. On Sunday, July 8, we lost one of the early pioneers in Oregon and nationally--Gerald K. Weller.

Jerry encouraged others to follow his example as an articulate leader, open about his sexual orientation and the critical nature of the civil rights movement he helped found. As a gay man, he provided many with their first experience of knowing an out and proud gay person.

Jerry was the executive director of Portland Town Council, a pioneering LGBTQ advocacy organization in Oregon, and went on to leadership on the national level in Washington, D.C. for what would become the Human Rights Campaign Fund. He led a major health clinic in Chicago in the midst of the AIDS epidemic. With his return to Oregon, he worked for several state agencies as a committed advocate for gay rights.

Early in my career, I valued Jerry's leadership, advice, support, and advocacy. He truly made his mark as one of the unsung heroes of the LGBTQ civil rights movement as he improved the lives of countless Oregonians and advanced understanding for many more.

I salute his impact on Oregon and the nation and mourn his loss.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution encapsulates what is wrong with the Republican management of this Congress. It is a cartoon that doesn't deal with the underlying issues. They conjure up an imaginary carbon tax when there are real proposals to price carbon before committees in Congress now.

Instead of engaging in fantasy, we could have a debate about real legislation that would satisfy their answers and be able to deal with what our responsibilities are in the future.

What we are talking about today encapsulates the failure of Republican leadership in this Congress. They can't deal with immigration. They can't deal meaningfully with climate change and carbon pollution. Instead, we are dealing with empty gestures.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest we reject this rule and get down to business.

Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program shortchanges taxpayers and those who pay flood insurance premiums, while placing communities and families at risk. For more than 20 years, I have worked to reform the program, and I am pleased that a small piece of our broader reform effort--the Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act--has passed the House of Representatives.

The flood insurance program is currently more than $20 billion in debt. This figure keeps rising as we see more devastating hurricanes and extreme weather events across our country. Part of the runaway cost of the program is due to the insuring of properties that have flooded repeatedly. In fact, a quarter of all claims paid by the flood insurance program are for repeatedly flooded properties, even though they make up less than two percent of properties covered by the program. For the safety of our communities and fiscal security of the country, Congress must do more to help those trapped in flood-prone areas move to safer land.

The Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act tasks the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with studying the efficacy of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) buyout programs for properties at high risk of flooding and those that are repeatedly flooded.

While this bill is just a small step, if we invest in our communities before disasters occur, we will save money, save property, and most importantly, save lives. My hope is that Congress can actually implement the recommendations of this study in an upcoming reauthorization, saving taxpayer dollars and providing help to those stuck in repeatedly flooded properties.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on the House Amendment to S. 488, the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018 (Roll No. 333), I would have voted ``aye.''

Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3030, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act of 2018 (Roll No. 334), I would have voted ``aye.''

Finally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4989, the Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act (Roll No. 335), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is just hard to keep track of the daily outrages: the President is not just insulting, but attacking allies like Canada on national security grounds; a tariff war; reckless and inaccurate attacks on NATO and our allies, the bedrock of stability in Europe; the President of the United States cozies up to one of the worst people on the face of the planet. Kim Jong-un, the dictator of North Korea, has imprisoned over 100,000 of his people in concentration camps, starved millions more, murdered members of his own family and is held up as some sort of exemplar by Trump. Trump says he likes the way his people pay attention to him. Well, maybe because if they don't, they get killed or sentenced to a concentration camp. This notion that we are forcibly separating children from families at the border, where the family simply is looking for asylum, inflicting probably permanent damage on these children; and, of course, the countless environmental attacks and the activities of corrupt cronies who have been put in positions of authority.

Last week we witnessed one of the most despicable acts of this disturbing administration: The United States launched a global attack on breastfeeding--yes, breastfeeding.

Think about it for a moment. Mother's milk is the most nutritious way to feed a baby. It contains antibodies that provide it with health protections as a baby and throughout its life.

There was an innocuous resolution that was being advanced before one of the United Nations affiliates, the World Health Assembly, to promote breastfeeding.

This is a serious problem in developing countries. Global giants that sell baby formula have been touting this as a healthier, more convenient alternative. Recent studies show that less than 40 percent of poor women in developing countries are breastfeeding. The use of infant formula in these poor countries not only is inferior, not only does it lack the long-term health benefits, and is it not a cheaper alternative for low-income people. Actually, in many of these countries, mixing formula with dirty water poses a direct threat immediately to the health of the child.

Ecuador, a member of this assembly, was prepared to introduce a routine resolution promoting breastfeeding. Then this administration sprang into action, pressuring Ecuador--allegedly, with retaliation in the trade sector--to not offer the resolution. Ultimately, the bullying was successful; the resolution was not advanced by Ecuador. Although, irony of ironies, it was Russia that stepped up and moved forward with the resolution, which was ultimately adopted with minor changes.

What does it say about America and this administration that it would be doing the bidding of giant international corporations, promoting a practice that actually undermines health in many poor people? Just having a resolution promoting the benefits of breastfeeding was threatening to their business and to this administration.

We have seen a lot of disturbing and shameful acts since Trump became President, but it is hard to imagine something worse than what was on display last week.

It is time for my Republican colleagues to join us, expressing outrage about behaviors like this. We are better people, and we ought to demonstrate it.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 970, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, there is a recent article in The New York Times about the Koch brothers and its stealth campaign to try to attack mass transit projects around the country. It was disturbing on several levels.

First and foremost, it is misguided in terms of the economic impact. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is $4 of economic activity generated for every $1 that is invested in transit. It increases business sales, and it results in higher real estate values and jobs created.

It is important to note that, right now, we have a road system that is heavily subsidized by the general fund. The road user charge has long since failed to pay for it. We have had to transfer $140 billion just to keep the failing Surface Transportation Program afloat.

The Koch brothers argue, through their organization, that American cities really don't have the population density to support mass transit systems. That is false. It is clear that there are some very dense systems serving Chicago and New York, but there are very successful programs in Phoenix and Houston with much lower density that are providing essential services.

It is important to remember who gets that service, because transit is much less expensive for men and women to be able to have access to jobs and employment. The average vehicle costs almost $10,000 a year to operate. In most families, it is the number two item in the family budget after housing. For many poor people, transportation is actually ahead of housing.

Transit provides access to jobs, so that people don't have to spend 42 hours a year trapped in traffic behind the wheel of a vehicle, as happens on average.

The notion that somehow we are going to be forced to look at a lack of density, well, communities across the country in the metropolitan areas are getting more and more dense. They are attracting young people, retired people, and more economic activity in the 49 largest metropolitan areas around the country. In those areas, transit is the most cost effective and environmentally sensitive way of providing that service, to say nothing of the fact that we kill almost 40,000 people a year on our roadways. Transit is amazingly safe by comparison.

One of the most disingenuous arguments is that transportation programs for mass transit are bad because they promote gentrification of our cities. Look at that argument for a moment. One of the things that is happening in cities across the country is that there is a new urban renaissance. Young millennials are moving back to the cities. Those are the engines of the economy. Aging baby boomers are finding it much more attractive to move into those urban cores than to be isolated out in the suburbs with a large-lot subdivision and forcing people to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk.

Those urban areas are our future. Not everybody is going to do it, but the majority of people are. We ought to be investing in transportation systems for our future, not undermining them by limiting investments to transportation of the past.

We are in the process of a rapid revolution in transportation technology and people's approaches. More and more young people, actually, are choosing not to buy a car, which sits idle about 22\1/2\ hours a day and is very expensive. They are instead choosing transit, ride-share, bike-share, and being able to have transportation when they need it--Lyft and Uber--without having an anchor of an individual car bearing down on them.

Frankly, gentrification is a function of how we plan and develop our cities. That ought to be an invitation to think about how to do it better, as many cities are doing now, not to undermine progress by assaulting transit.

Mr. Chair, today, I voted in support of H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act. This was a difficult decision.

I voted for this bill because I strongly support the recovery of wild native fish populations in the Columbia River and its tributaries. There is an immediate, serious risk to native steelhead, among other fish, that this bill seeks to reduce.

I, however, do not view this bill as a wise long-term strategy for salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia River Basin. While the detrimental impacts of sea lions need to be addressed, human-caused factors are the primary driver in the declining salmon and steelhead populations. Instead of focusing on sea lions--another protected species with an important role in our ecosystem--let's actually confront the damage that we ourselves have caused. Pitting one treasured species against another does nothing to address the damage and obstacles that humans have forced upon this vital Pacific Northwest ecosystem.

This will not be easy. The impediments are many--the impacts from dams, habitat degradation, unprecedented climate disruption, and more. Regional partners have been working for years to address these issues, and thankfully our native fish are strikingly resilient. But we must do much, much more. Let's have a real conversation about the actual causes of salmon and steelhead decline and what we can do to meaningfully contribute to their recovery.

While this bill may reduce some short-term stressors, it is not a solution. Salmon and steelhead--iconic species in the Pacific Northwest--will only recover if we come together to face the facts and tackle the real issues that are our legacy--and our responsibility.