Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are going to be asked this month to embrace a budget and a tax proposal with highly disputed benefits. But what is not in dispute is it will add $1.5 trillion to the national debt and up to $4 trillion in cuts to programs Americans care deeply about, like Medicaid and Medicare.

There is a better way. I spent much of this last weekend in Orlando, Florida, with leaders of the American Trucking Association. These are people who understand the infrastructure crisis America faces because they and their employees deal with it every single day. Instead of cutting transportation funding or having some mythical program without details, they are willing to step up and invest more, raising their fuel taxes--they already pay about half the total cost of the Highway Trust Fund--to be able to make a difference.

And I would hope that Congress will look at that example, listen to those people, and be able to do its part.

In no small measure, because of the leadership of many small businesses and trucking associations around the country, over half the States, since 2012, have stepped up to raise their transportation resources, and the States are seeing the benefit. They are seeing the economic impact of the construction, and it is making a difference on the ground for people and communities.

It is important that the Federal Government does its part. We need to be there for projects that are multimodal, that are multi-State, and multiyear. That Federal partnership has played a vital role since the enactment of the Interstate Highway System in 1956.

The trucking industry was able to make the point that the public is already paying the cost, about $1,500 a year extra cost for the typical family for car maintenance and congestion.

The transportation industry is paying some $63 billion of cost every year due to congestion. For about $2 a week, from the average family, we could take critical steps to make sure that we address this infrastructure funding crisis.

If people really want to have some congressional action that will put people to work at family wage jobs, not the disputed trickle-down economics, it is undisputable that every $1.2 billion invested in infrastructure creates almost 30,000 jobs.

It creates almost about $2 billion of economic activity. For each $1.2 billion invested, it will reduce the deficit $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, it is past time that this Congress stops shirking its responsibility. We ought to be in partnership not just with the truckers, but with AAA, engineers, contractors, construction unions, local government, the vast array, the largest coalition of groups dealing with a controversial issue before Congress. If we would give 2 weeks to hear from these leaders across the country of this broad coalition, the case would be made and I think Congress would finally step up and do its job.

Our partners in the private sector, in State and local government, and people in the communities can expect Congress to be a partner to make our communities more livable, to make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

I hope when some of our friends from the trucking industry join us this week on Capitol Hill, that Members will listen to their case and be able to have the courage to step up and invest in

our future. Our constituents deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, Dana Milbank had an interesting column in the morning Post about the feckless congressional response to the opioid crisis. Both the administration and Congress have been good at hyping the crisis, but when it comes time to actually taking action, almost nothing happens.

The failure to protect our citizens is appalling, especially since most of the opioid crisis is a result of failed public policies. We have spent over $1 trillion on a failed war on drugs that concentrates on prohibition and punishment instead of treatment, which would help people break the cycle of addiction.

The challenges that drove people to abuse opioids in the first place, like chronic pain, depression, and lax policies prescribing vast quantities of ever-more powerful opioids, should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. It was a public policy failure of government, the industry, and, sadly, some unscrupulous practitioners that allowed the addiction genie out of the bottle.

When denied access to opioids, people, understandably, turn to heroin and other damaging and addictive drugs because they were trapped by these powerful forces. Few people willingly damage their bodies and destroy their families and careers, if not for powerful forces beyond their control.

As appalling as this failure is, what is even worse is that we fail to take reasonable, commonsense steps to stop it. The easiest solution is to provide more access to medical marijuana, already available in 28 States. This availability, by the way, has been driven as a result of citizen action and not politicians, who have too often been afraid to touch it.

The evidence is powerful and overwhelming. Where there is access to medical marijuana to treat the problems that drove people on the path to addiction in the first place, there are fewer pills prescribed and overdose deaths drop.

It is clear that using medical marijuana is as effective, or perhaps even more effective, than opioids to treat pain. They cause less damage to people's health and are far less costly than pharmaceuticals. I provided the subcommittee taking testimony with the facts and citations that would justify digging deep into this potential solution.

Cannabis reduces overdose deaths, reduces opioid consumption, and it can prevent dose escalation and the development of opioid tolerance, which leads to that cycle, and too often, tragically, opioid deaths: 175 people a day.

As my friend, Greg Walden, pointed out in the subcommittee hearing yesterday, more people die in Oregon from opioid overdose than traffic accidents.

More benefits, fewer side effects, lower costs.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the evidence I gave to the Subcommittee on Health yesterday.

Physician Guide to Cannabis-Assisted Opioid Reduction

(Prepared by Adrianne Wilson-Poe, Ph.D.)

Cannabis reduces opioid overdose mortality.

In states with medicinal cannabis laws, opioid overdoses

drop by an average of 25%.

This effect gets bigger the longer the law has been in place.

For instance, there is a 33% drop in mortality in California,

where compassionate use has been in place since 1996.

This finding was replicated by Columbia's school of public

health, using a completely different analysis strategy.

Cannabis reduces opioid consumption.

Cannabis is opioid-sparing in chronic pain patients. When

patients are given access to cannabis, they drop their opioid

use by roughly 50%. This finding has been replicated several

times from Ann Arbor to Jerusalem.

This opioid sparing effect is accompanied by an enhancement

of cognitive function once patients begin cannabis therapy:

this effect is most likely due to the fact that patients

reduce their opioid use.

Cannabis use is associated with a reduction in not only

opioid consumption, but also many other drugs including

benzodiazepines, which also have a high incidence of fatal

overdose. In states with medicinal cannabis laws, the number

of prescriptions for analgesic and anxiolytic drugs (among

others) are substantially reduced. Medicare and Medicaid

prescription costs are substantially lower in states with

cannabis laws.

Cannabis can prevent dose escalation and the development of

opioid tolerance.

Cannabinoids and opioids have acute analgesic synergy. When

opioids and cannabinoids are coadministered, they produce

greater than additive analgesia. This suggests that analgesic

dose of opioids is substantially lower for patients using

cannabis therapy.

In chronic pain patients on opioid therapy, cannabis does

not affect pharmacokinetics of opioids, yet it still enhances

analgesia. This finding further supports a synergistic

mechanism of action.

Pre-clinical models indicate that cannabinoids attenuate

the development of opioid tolerance.

Cannabis, alone or in combination with opioids, could be a

viable first-line analgesic.

The CDC has updated its recommendations in the spring of

2016, stating that most cases of chronic pain should be

treated with non-opioids.

The National Academies of Science and Medicine recently

conducted an exhaustive review of 10,000+ human studies

published since 1999, definitively concluding that cannabis

itself (not a specific cannabinoid or cannabis-derived

molecule) is safe and effective for the treatment of chronic

pain.

When 3,000 chronic pain patients were surveyed, they

overwhelmingly preferred cannabis as an opioid alternative.

97% ``strongly agreed/agreed'' that they could decrease

their opioid use when using cannabis.

92% ``strongly agreed/agreed'' that they prefer cannabis to

treat their medical condition.

81% ``strongly agreed/ agreed'' that cannabis by itself was

more effective than taking opioids.

Cannabis may be a viable tool in medication-assisted

relapse prevention.

CBD is non-intoxicating, and is the 2nd most abundant

cannabinoid found in cannabis. CBD alleviates the anxiety

that leads to drug craving. In human pilot studies, CBD

administration is sufficient to prevent heroin craving for at

least 7 days.

Cannabis users are more likely to adhere to naltrexone

maintenance for opioid dependence.

There is a reason that up to 90 percent of the American public favors greater access to medical marijuana. Last year, voters in Florida approved their program by over 70 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government continues to interfere, threatening medical marijuana programs, which requires Congress to step in to shield it, as we have done last year and for the previous 2 years. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee denied us a chance to vote on it.

Last Congress, both Houses approved measures for VA doctors to be able to consult with veterans who have a serious overdose problem. Despite passing both Chambers, it was stripped out and the Rules Committee failed to allow us to vote on this as well.

Most tragically, Congress continues to allow the Federal Government to have a stranglehold on research to be conducted to be able to definitely answer these questions.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join my friend, Dr. Andy Harris, and me on our research bill, H.R. 3391. There is no reason that the Federal Government denies research to be able to definitively answer these questions.

I am tired of looking at the opioid damage in my State and around the country, and have Congress propose Band-aids when there is a simple, commonsense, widely accepted, and popular approach: allow people access to medical marijuana.

The time to do it is now. Lives are being lost as we dither.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the Obama administration took a very positive and important step towards curbing greenhouse gas emissions by initiating the Clean Power Plan, the first-ever national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The plan was devised to give States the option to tailor how they would reduce carbon pollution, following benchmarks set by the Federal Government.

For years, States, local governments, businesses, and universities have been making progress towards a low-carbon future, both in anticipation of full implementation of the Clean Power Plan and spurred on by a variety of other forces. Now, the Trump administration has vowed to unravel the Clean Power Plan, but the momentum will not stop because of this reckless act.

Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt cannot repeal engineering, science, or economics. Their attempts would only harm the economy and our citizens, miring us in the past to serve the interests of Big Coal.

The case for action in reducing carbon pollution is compelling. The Clean Power Plan encourages steps to reduce the dangerous extent of accelerating climate disruption and attendant extreme weather events.

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria are only the latest example of those events. Now, millions of acres in the West are exploding in wildfires. More frequent, more intense, and more dangerous forest fires are the reality now, spurred by climate disruption.

Out-of-control wildfire has touched Oregon's beloved Columbia River Gorge, and the latest instances are in California wine country, taking lives, destroying property, and damaging crops.

Regardless of your view on climate change, the Clean Power Plan is a very important step for the United States. It stands on firm legal ground. The Supreme Court has ruled on three separate occasions that the EPA has the authority and the responsibility to protect our families from carbon pollution.

Cleaner energy and a cleaner environment under the Clean Power Plan would improve the lives of working Americans. By 2030, it would prevent 90,000 asthma attacks, 300,000 days missed from work and school, and 3,600 premature deaths every year.

Instead of protecting human health, particularly those in communities most impacted by carbon pollution, Trump and Pruitt are seeking to tilt the energy playing field back in favor of Big Coal.

Make no mistake: without subsidies and regulatory favoritism, most old, dirty, coal plants would have been shut down years ago if they had been required to meet carbon pollution and air quality standards, as they should have been.

Trump and Pruitt are making a big mistake when they assault the Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan. They are on weak legal ground, and they are on the wrong side of science, economics, the environment, and common sense.

The Clean Power Plan will not be easily unraveled. There is a process to unwind it, similar to what it took to put it in place. It will take a lot of hard work--and evidence that Pruitt doesn't have--to repeal it and prevent the EPA from regulating carbon emissions.

The plan has powerful allies. I am proud to stand with the environmental community, my fellow Democrats in Congress, many government and trade groups, citizens who care, and a number of businesses. Mars is the latest company to announce that they are going to follow through on their carbon reduction plan.

We will continue this fight for a low-carbon, healthier, more economical future. We will protect alternative energy and honor the commitments we have made to the wind and solar industries. We will continue to reduce emissions from our transportation sector by not rolling back fuel efficiency standards.

We will work with the agriculture sector, which makes up 9 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. A strong farm bill can reduce emissions and enhance productivity through low-carbon protections.

Ultimately, Trump and Pruitt cannot repeal science, engineering, or economics. I am proud to be part of this effort to ensure that the United States moves forward to exercise leadership in a low-carbon future to fight climate change and global weather disruption.

Mr. Speaker, on October 12, friends, partners and admirers of Bob Frasca are gathering in Portland to honor his career of over 50 years. Bob was a founder of one of America's leading architectural firms, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects. Since its humble beginnings, ZGF has grown to be one of the premier architectural firms in the world with 600 design professionals networked across six offices in the U. S. and Canada. Portland, across the country, and around the world, ZGF has received accolades and awards for its design work.

The firm would not be where it is today without the leadership and influence of Bob Frasca.

Bob graduated with a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Michigan, and a Master of City Planning from MIT. He moved to Portland in 1959 and became the partner-in-charge of design for ZGF in 1966. Over the years, I have witnessed his significant impact in the Portland region with his emphasis on designs that build communities. He has played an important role in the evolution of Portland as livable city, thanks to his collaboration with others and his advocacy for the civic role architects and architecture play in making a great city. He was instrumental in the redevelopment of Portland's waterfront and defined the ``heart'' of downtown that later became Pioneer Square. His design influence is seen in the Portland skyline with projects like the Justice Center, the KOIN Tower and the Oregon Convention Center, as well as Portland International Airport.

His portfolio of user-driven buildings has been recognized for creating environments that foster health and innovation, demonstrated by the National Institutes of Health Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center, the Duke University Fitzpatrick Center for Interdisciplinary Sciences, and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute Yawkey Center for Cancer Care. His work in urban contexts has continued with projects such as Twelve West in Portland and 1200 Seventeenth Street in Washington, DC, and his international reach has touched U.S. embassies and consulates in Istanbul, Sofia, and Manila.

With Bob's leadership, ZGF's design excellence and architecture raised the firm's profile worldwide. Clients have engaged them to develop projects from single structures to entire eco-districts, pioneering a new urban planning approach to create resilient neighborhoods, grounded in placemaking and community stakeholder engagement for a collective, sustainable vision.

Throughout his career, Bob has received numerous awards, including the AIA Northwest & Pacific Region Medal of Honor for his contributions to the built environment, his advocacy for design excellence and ongoing mentorship of emerging design talent, the Watzek Award for Contributions to the Enrichment of the State of Oregon, and the Honored Citizen Award from the Architectural Foundation of Oregon.

Bob Frasca's illustrious career deserves a hearty congratulations. His leadership, passion for the process of design, and ethic of environmental stewardship has raised the architectural bar and the quality of the urban experience throughout the nation, internationally, and most importantly, here at home in Portland, Oregon.

Madam Speaker, what if the headline in the morning paper was slightly different? What if we had a disease that had killed 59 people yesterday and sickened over 500 others? Do you think the Nation would demand action?

If we had an outbreak every day that had over 100,000 people a year killed and injured, Congress would be in a frenzy. Yesterday, we found 2 minutes for a moment of silence, and we moved on.

Gun violence is a public health hazard every bit as important as any other disease or outbreak. Ours is the only developed country in the world that cannot protect our families from death and injury from guns on a massive scale.

After years of frustration in Congress and another school shooting in my district, I sat down with my constituents to go through, what are the things that we can do that would make a difference?

We understood that you cannot completely stop evil people. There is not a statute that is foolproof, but our statutes are filled with efforts to try to make things better.

Let's stop dealing with gun violence as a political issue and think about it as the public health epidemic that it is, already claiming over 12,000 lives in the United States this year.

We attacked auto death and safety in a resolute fashion. It didn't happen overnight that we made automobiles safer and our highways less dangerous, but we stayed at it with law enforcement, with engineering, and with research, and we cut the rate of death over half.

We are starting now to deal with massive addiction and overdose as a medical condition that requires treatment, not just law enforcement with harsh punishment.

My report outlined nine areas where we could take action. There are 26 bills in Congress now that deal with these items, and we haven't been able to deal with them meaningfully: no hearings and certainly nothing on the floor of the House.

There are provisions to keep guns away from the most dangerous users. Even members of the NRA support that. We can improve the mental health system. We can authorize and increase research into gun safety.

There is an outrageous provision in United States law that prevents the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence that was authored by our late colleague Jay Dickey from Arkansas who, later in life, realized that was a horrific mistake. We ought to be able to understand and find ways to help prevent it.

We can control access to the most dangerous products. We can increase product safety for guns, which are inherently dangerous. We can empower healthcare professionals to deal with families to help prevent gun violence and understand what risks their families face, rather than outrageous provisions that seek to limit what healthcare professionals can do to deal with their patients. We can effectively regulate the sale of firearms. There should be no hidden sales where we do not have background checks.

This is all within our capacity. We can enforce existing laws, and we can mitigate the loss of life in shooting by helping provide more resources for first responders.

This isn't pie in the sky. This will do nothing to take away the rights of Americans who want to target shoot or hunt. What it will do, is start the slow, steady process toward making our families safer and make sure that America is not the only developed country that cannot protect its families from gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bill is one of the most important bills that most Americans have never heard of. It impacts our economy, environment, and what we eat. It is important that Congress gets the upcoming reauthorization right.

Today, I am introducing the Sustainable Farmland for the Future Act. This bill builds upon the progress we made in the 2014 Farm Bill to promote the long-term sustainability of farmland and better protect the environment.

In 1985, Congress enacted conservation compliance in the Farm Bill, codifying the compact between taxpayers, farmers, and landowners to provide stability through subsidies in return for responsible stewardship of farmland and the surrounding environment. The 1985 Farm Bill simply required most farm subsidy recipients to implement basic conservation practices on vulnerable farmland and wetlands. The 2014 Farm Bill improved this measure by expanding the conservation compact to recipients of crop insurance premium subsidies. While the USDA has found that the current conservation compact has successfully reduced runoff and soil erosion, Congress must do more.

The Sustainable Farmland for the Future Act would strengthen the conservation compact by requiring farmers who receive taxpayer assistance to abide by basic, common-sense conservation standards on all of their land, not just ``highly erodible land'' and converted wetland. By complying with these expanded standards and acting as good stewards, farmers will be honoring the commitment made to the taxpayers who provide for their farm subsidies.

I believe that the Sustainable Farmland for the Future Act is one of the 115th Congress's most important pieces of environmental legislation and should be considered for inclusion in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize 26 Oregon veterans who traveled here today to visit Washington, D.C. These brave men and women risked their lives to protect and defend the United States and have now come to our nation's capital to visit the monuments and memorials they helped inspire. The veterans on this flight from Oregon are: Archie Brown, Richard ``Dick'' Burling, Robert ``Bob'' Burness, Louis ``Caldonia'' Caldarelli, Francis Charriere, Harold Engelen, Donald ``Red'' Eudaly, Wilhelm ``Bill'' Guttormsen, Jack Hartung, Vidus ``Vince'' Klune, Robert ``Bob'' Jewitt, James ``Jay'' Majors, Glen McCall, Andrew ``Andy'' McDermaid, Larry D. Miller, Barbara ``Jeanne'' Moss, Hal Pallay, Robert ``Bob'' Petchell, Robert ``Bob'' Schug, Sylvester ``Pat'' Smith Jr, Martin Spellman, Patricia ``Patty'' Sprigg, John Steigleder, Ralph Thompson, William ``Bill'' Walker, and Alan Lertzman.

Mr. Speaker, more than 10 years ago, following Hurricane Katrina, then-Rep. Curt Weldon and I introduced the bipartisan Safe Communities Act. Today, with wildfires burning in my state and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Jose ravaging the Southeast, the ability to prepare for, withstand, and quickly recover from disasters is an essential component of livable communities. That's why I am reintroducing the Safe Communities Act, which will give state and local governments the tools to help them plan for and reduce the impact of these events.

Federal investments in natural disasters should include prevention and mitigation as well as response and recovery. In fact, investment in prevention can save money in the long-term. Research by an independent group of experts in 2005 found that every dollar invested in actions to reduce disaster losses saves the nation about $4 in future costs. We all agree that by planning for the future communities can help prevent damage and save money, but rarely do we do it.

The Safe Communities Act will create a new grant program to support state, local and regional planning activities aimed at reducing threats posed by natural and human-caused disasters. Grant-eligible projects under this program include comprehensive risk assessments and inventories of critical infrastructure, land-use planning for natural hazards and terrorism security, updates to building codes and development of new urban design techniques for risk-reduction. The bill will also create a research program to investigate the best practices in comprehensive land use and community planning aimed at reducing threats posed by natural hazards and acts of tenor.

The number of people who live in harm's way is expanding dramatically, and more properties and more lives are at risk from both natural and human-caused disasters. The associated increases in rising disaster recovery costs impact us all. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure communities have the resources they need to help prepare for future natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, as we watch the horrific scenes of destruction from Hurricane Harvey and Irma, I must say that I have been taken back in time.

I came to Congress 20 years ago in the aftermath of serious flooding in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. I was Portland's Commissioner of Public Works at the time, and we had to scramble to try and prevent flood damage into our central city.

Since that time, I have spent a great deal of time and energy focusing on what we can do to solve problems of repetitive flooding, having Federal policies in place that makes it less likely that people will be in harm's way. Sadly, over the course of over 20 years, we are very slow to learn these messages.

First and foremost, we continue to provide payments to properties that are repeatedly flooded. When we started over 15 years ago on a program for reforming the flood insurance program, one of the best examples that we used for the need for reform was a home in suburban Houston that had flood insurance payments 17 times in less than 20 years. The total was over $1 million for a piece of property that was less than $120,000 in value. We would have been far better off buying it at a generous price and returning it to its natural state, saving the taxpayers money and minimizing future flood damage.

Such is the case when we looked at what was going on with Hurricane Katrina, where we have problems in Louisiana over the years, a city, New Orleans, that is slowly settling, and has engaged in development in some areas where people, like in the lower Ninth Ward, were repeatedly subjected to flood damage.

But what we have done too often in the past is we have put people back in harm's way. We shouldn't be spending Federal flood relief to put people back in the same situation and having a problem with rising tides because of global warming, changing weather patterns that are going to cost us more money and put more people at risk.

There are some simple steps. First, we ought to get rid of the deficit for the flood insurance program. There is no way that premiums are going to make up a deficit of over $24 billion that is going to be even bigger after the bills become due for Irma and for Harvey. Let's stop pretending that.

Wipe the slate clean, like we did with the so-called doc fix, and get down to solutions. Part of the solution is to make sure that people pay actuarial rates for flood insurance. Pay what it has cost. Disguising that cost gives people a false sense of security and reduces that economic incentive to get out of harm's way, while it makes it less likely that the program will be self-supporting.

Have adequate, accurate flood insurance maps. We ought to immediately move towards accurate flood maps so that people get the right signals. Now, actuarial rates, actual flood insurance maps will cause some disruption and financial problems for some people, so this should be phased in over time; it shouldn't happen immediately. But those pricing signals should be clear. We should stop subsidizing some and sending inaccurate signals for others.

We ought to invest in mitigation. We save about $4 for every dollar we spend flood-proofing areas, making them less dangerous in the future. These are simple, commonsense steps that have been suggested by experts for years.

We do nobody any favor subsidizing them living in harm's way; allowing local governments to evade their responsibilities to make sure that people don't build in dangerous places; and putting first responders, police, firefighters, and utility workers at risk as they rush in to try and save people in dangerous situations.

Over the next 3 months, we have a unique opportunity to finally learn these lessons, save taxpayer dollars, save lives, save property, and get on with the business in a way that is more sustainable. Given the problems we are facing with climate change in the future, these problems are only going to get worse. We ought to start now to solve the problem.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment, somebody I enjoy working with and respect; but, with all due respect, I think he is wrong on this. There is no denying the fact that there are some bad people in Iran who do bad things, and we have a complicated relationship that we are trying to deal with.

But, first of all, there are already other countries who are involved with this. Airbus just had a contract. What the gentleman is talking about would deny the opportunity for Boeing to be able to have these sales go forward, cost Americans up to 100,000 jobs, and keep billions of dollars out of the United States' economy.

Mr. Chairman, part of this is people are deeply concerned about the agreement that we made with Iran dealing with nuclear weapons, which, I would note, to this point, has actually dialed down some of the work in terms of halted enrichment beyond 3.67 percent, it limited the size of its uranium stockpile, filled in the core of a heavy water nuclear reactor with cement, and provides an opportunity for us to do something. There are many areas in this region where we have common interests, and we are kind of doing a dance.

One of the concerns I have is the United States has consistently mismanaged its relationship with Iran.

How would we feel if somebody had moved to overturn our popularly elected government, as we did with Iran in 1953, or we sided with Saddam Hussein in the brutal war against Iran when they were openly using chemical weapons?

There are things here that have made this a difficult relationship.

The majority of Iranians, ironically, still like Americans. Unlike Donald Trump's imaginary Muslims in New Jersey dancing in the street on 9/11, in Tehran on 9/11, there were candlelight vigils in support of the United States. It has more of a democracy than what we have in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Now, I agree that we have challenges dealing with them, but at a time when we should be strengthening ties with a former enemy through diplomacy, trade, and job creation, we should be able to try and have the management of this complicated relation rather than penalizing American companies for no good purpose.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. I understand the deep concerns about things that Iranians are doing that I personally disagree with. The Syrian conflict is a horrific tragedy, but we have problems with Russia in Syria, we have problems with Turkey in Syria. We are involved with a situation in the Middle East that is horrific and is going to require all of our best efforts.

With all due respect, we have a number of things we are trying to achieve in this regard. I think being able to maintain our commitments under the agreement with the JCPOA is important. That Iranian nuclear agreement has held and it is one of the few bright spots in that region.

Second, we are punishing an American company, but, as I mentioned, Airbus just executed a contract. There are other parts of the world that have moved forward. One of the reasons that we were able to get alignment was there are different agreements in terms of what people want to do with France, Great Britain, Germany, and Russia.

We have struck an agreement with those allied powers working with us to make it more difficult for Iran to be a nuclear state. We have an opportunity for us to not penalize American companies. We have an opportunity for us to try and make diplomacy work, which has been undercut by many of the things we are seeing from the administration, trying to dial back the capacity of the State Department, dial back the soft power that even the military says that we need to do.

We have a number of areas where there are sponsors of terror. Pakistan is involved with all sorts of things in this region, and, of course, they have been key in helping North Korea become a nuclear state.

I don't think we should paint a picture here that is too simplistic. We ought to acknowledge the fact that this is complex, that there are problems, but deal with a country where the majority of people like Americans, where they have kept their nuclear commitments, where other countries are going to step in and fill the gap, and that we ought not to penalize American industry or undercut diplomatic efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was standing next to John Lewis as we joined our Democratic colleagues from the House and the Senate who delivered a spirited message of resolve to fight Donald Trump's cruelty towards almost 800,000 young Americans and, of course, several million other members of their families, their friends, their employers, who all had their lives turned upside down by Trump's senseless, unnecessary decision.

Strange for somebody who professes to love the DREAMers, Trump is caught in his own trap. He clearly didn't know what he was doing, trying to figure out ways to pass responsibility for his decision on to others. But, of course, that is sort of what we have come to expect from someone who appears to care only for himself. He was afraid, even, to deliver the message himself. Typical of Donald Trump, he outsourced the decision to Jeff Sessions, who Trump spent most of the summer demeaning.

Now, I think there is a simple solution: take it back. Donald Trump is famous for mulligans on the golf course, do-overs. If he didn't like the shot, he would just do it again. Well, let's declare a DACA mulligan. Take it back. Yes, it might look foolish, but that really hasn't stopped him before.

In the meantime, the outrage builds: the community of faith, the business community, people across the country who are understanding the lunacy of this decision, its unfairness. But the most telling and powerful points are from the young DREAMers themselves.

My colleagues have delivered this message from people whom they have heard from in their districts. I have countless ones that have been shared with us.

Jamie, a 31-year-old father of two, a DACA recipient, was 12 when his family fled to the United States to escape poverty and corruption. For 9 years, he has dedicated his life to helping young people cope with these challenges. He is working with young people impacted by the issue, concerned about their mental health and their well-being.

Eddie arrived from Mexico as a 1-year-old baby. He really didn't understand the impact of being undocumented until he applied for college and was not eligible for Federal assistance, but eventually he attended and graduated from Portland State University; and he has become the first undocumented student admitted to Oregon Health & Science University School of Dentistry. Scheduled to graduate next year, he wants to be able to serve the community that raised him.

Karla, arrived as a 4-year-old, is currently a student, but whose concern is the message that is being sent to others whom she works with. DACA recipients are not all young professionals or valedictorians. Some work in fast-food restaurants and are struggling to get through community college.

She makes the point that some may call her a DREAMer, but she felt that the real DREAMers were her parents, who had the dream for her. They fought to come to this country to raise her and give her the opportunity to work, attend school, and live without fear of deportation.

These are compelling stories, Mr. Speaker, but the one that stands out in my mind most clearly was one of my first meetings after the election. I was meeting with a number of the young DREAMers, listening to their concerns, their apprehensions. The conversation stopped with one young man who just said, ``What country should I go to?'' He had choices to go to Canada or Europe. He was an accomplished student, ambitious.

``What country should I go to?'' I must admit, at the time, I counseled him to not give up on the United States too quickly. I wonder what he thinks today.

Mr. Speaker, we return to Capitol Hill amidst chaos-- wildfires in the West, choking smoke in my community, the cruelty of 800,000 young people having their lives turned upside down unnecessarily by Trump yesterday, and we are dancing with the debt ceiling chaos with the world economy. All are made unnecessarily worse. Even Harvey was predictable due to government action and inaction.

Congress should stop pretending these things are beyond our control. A majority of Congress would treat young DREAMers, fairly if given a right to vote for it on the floor of the House.

We should fund disaster prevention, including forest fires, and stop subsidizing more floods, and not play unnecessary games with the world economy, pretending we won't pay for money we have already spent.

In the end, we will probably spend the next 3 weeks setting up the next crisis later in the year.

Isn't it time that Congress stop playing the victim and take charge?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor of the House dealing with autonomous vehicles. I think this is one of the most important issues that nobody is really focused on. I wish it were not on the suspension calendar and we had a chance to spend several hours discussing it here.

What you have done is forge a bipartisan coalition to be able to leapfrog going forward, to be able to not just focus on safety, but how autonomous vehicles have the opportunity to reshape the American landscape dealing with recovering right-of-way and being able to have new economic opportunities.

But this must be done right. The fact that ``Driver'' is the number 1 category of employment for men without a college education, means there could be some problems here. If we don't do it right, we can actually increase congestion rather than decrease it.

But I think you have established the framework to allow us to go forward, to be able to capitalize on this innovation, to be able to accelerate American leadership and avoid the problem we had with drones where the FAA was not really capable of dealing with drones which were more like flying cell phones than dealing with jets. You are trying to lay a foundation that I think is going to help us avoid that problem, and it is going to pay dividends for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting question about an opportunity for people in a region to try and craft a solution.

I have been working with people in Clark County for 40 years, because this has been a serious problem between Portland and Vancouver, Oregon and Washington.

The gentlewoman may have noticed that this is a serious problem for her constituents. In fact, they pay more of the burden in terms of congestion and lost opportunity for economic development. I hear about it all the time from businesses in our communities.

There is no solution to this congestion problem without either investing money or sending some pricing signals to try and change some behaviors. Not everybody has to cross the I-205 and I-5 freeway at 8:30 in the morning and 5:30 in the evening.

What has been proposed in Oregon is to look at alternatives. I am not going to prejudge what it is, but I would notice that there is a yearlong process that is underway, including people on the other side of the river, because we have always worked with Clark County and previously with the legislators in the State of Washington and people in Congress to try and figure out how we work together. We are one region. There are 60,000 people who work in Oregon every day who have to negotiate a really troublesome area.

The Federal Government is still trying to pay for 2017 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993, when States around the country have been stepping up, including in Washington and Puget Sound. Voters are expressing their own frustration and taxing themselves to solve these problems.

The Federal Government has been missing in action. In fact, many of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are looking at creative programs for public-private partnerships. There were 26 Senators who talked about devolving the interstate freeway system and the Federal transportation partnership to the States.

For us to swoop in when the Federal Government has been missing in action and try to help the gentlewoman's constituents and mine and to try and pull the rug out from underneath, an approach that may have some potential and would in fact require voter support, I think, is an egregious overreach.

I may have missed it, but I haven't heard the gentlewoman's proposals to pay for solutions for her constituents. I have offered some. We are working on the Oregon side. Occasionally, we have had some partnerships with the State of Washington, who collapsed the proposal for a Columbia crossing because they weren't willing to put any money on the table. For the Federal Government to intervene and take away this option I think is outrageous and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I support my friend from California in urging that this body focus on this crisis in the West. With the outrage that has happened with the DACA students and with the tragedy in Houston, there are lots of things to occupy our time. But the firefighting in the West has impacted thousands of people. I have people who are forced to evacuate in my community.

We have 24 large fires in Montana, 19 in Oregon, and 17 in California. But what is really outrageous is that the Republican leadership in the House refuses to treat these disasters the same way we would treat Hurricane Harvey or Hurricane Katrina being able to put disaster funding on the table.

We are going to completely exhaust those resources in a matter of days, and then we are going to cannibalize the Forest Service budget that could be used to strengthen forest protections, put people to work, and avoid problems in the future. That is outrageous.

We have bipartisan legislation that would pass if the Republican leadership would allow it on the floor of the House. But at a minimum, we should not have any disaster relief that doesn't have money for these tragic fires in the West.