Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the president announced that he would withdraw from the non-binding Paris Agreement, undermining the credibility of the United States and displaying a complete disregard for the effects of climate change. This is unacceptable.

Climate change is real. We are already experiencing rising sea levels and harsher storms at an accelerated pace, and without action, they are only going to get worse. Poll after poll show that the majority of American people support staying in the Paris Agreement, and the scientific community has reached a clear consensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity. In the face of these facts, the president continues to undermine environmental protections and reject the science of climate change.

The American people should not be responsible for bailing out leaders who ignore science to gain political points, while subjecting the United States--and the rest of the world--to the catastrophic effects of climate change. That's why today I am introducing the Prohibiting Aid for Recipients Ignoring Science Act, or the PARIS Act, to ensure that any president has a stake in the catastrophic consequences of ignoring climate science.

The PARIS Act would prevent properties owned by the president's family from receiving federally subsidized flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. The president should not be able to shift costs to taxpayers as he does business in flood-prone areas while withdrawing from efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to give the president a stake in this fight and to take serious action on addressing climate change. The fate of our children, our grandchildren, and the planet depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, from sweeping changes to how care is delivered, to

the rise of personalized medicine, patients today have more treatment options when facing advanced illness than ever before. With these medical advances, the line between life and death can sometimes be blurred, which has changed the way we must talk about how we want to live and die.

Despite these enormous changes, confronting an advanced illness or the end of life remains one of the most difficult and challenging situations any family faces.

There is substantial evidence that suggests the care individuals want to receive at the end of life is not necessarily the type of care they do receive. Patients, in fact, often receive aggressive treatment that not only substantially shortens their length of life, but its quality. At other times, patients find the health care system instead undervalues the quality of their life, withholding treatments they would otherwise want to receive.

Issues surrounding the end of life and advanced illness management become even more important when looking at the rapidly aging population in the United States. In 2014, Americans ages 65 and older made up 15 percent of the total population; by 2060 that share is projected to grow to 24 percent.

A recent survey conducted by The Economist and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority of U.S. adults say the government is not prepared to deal with the aging population. The same survey found that a large majority of Americans believe both that patients and their families should have a greater say in which treatment options they receive, and that most Americans don't believe they have enough control over their medical decisions at the end of life. This must change.

Individuals should have every opportunity to actively participate in making decisions about their health care throughout their lives and should receive care consistent with their values, goals, and informed preferences. Patients should feel empowered to make informed choices about the health care they want and to have those care decisions honored by their providers and family.

During passage of Affordable Care Act, I saw an opportunity to apply lessons learned in Oregon with its landmark comprehensive palliative care programs, which give patients more of a say about the medical treatment they want at the end of life. I worked to ensure that Congress included a payment for doctors to talk to patients and families about advance care planning in the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, this provision wasn't included in the final legislation due to a breakdown of the legislative process.

After years of advocacy, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services designed a benefit allowing doctors to receive reimbursement for voluntary advance care planning conversations with their patients. For the first time, Medicare will pay for these critical doctor-patient discussions in the same way it pays for any other medical service.

Yet our work to improve end-of-life care is far from over, and it is for these reasons that I am introducing the bipartisan, bicameral Patient Choice and Quality Care Act of 2017. This legislation will strengthen advanced illness care by establishing a new model of care delivery that to better manage advanced illness, improve quality of care, and enhance training, resources, and tools for providers, patients, and their families.

Ideally, health care should work in sync with social, psychological, and spiritual support as the end of life approaches. Care near the end of life must be patient-centered and family-oriented. This legislation is supported by patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community, who understand how improving care delivery for advanced illness fundamentally improves quality of care and quality of life. To that end, I ask my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, May 26 was a dark moment in my community, as a hateful tirade toward two young women, evidently based on their race and faith, led to tragedy.

In the face of this menacing behavior, three brave Portlanders intervened to protect these young women. Two lost their lives, another had his throat slashed. They were Ricky Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai- Meche, and Micah David-Cole Fletcher. Micah

David-Cole Fletcher survived the ordeal, still expressing hope and compassion.

That dark moment and bright example of courage and compassion has prompted soul-searching in my community. There has been a tremendous outpouring of support and a commitment to help the vulnerable. We all think about whether we would have had that courage.

Who knows what might have happened to those two young women if those courageous people had not intervened. Based on what happened, it is highly likely that they would have been physically assaulted, injured, or worse.

We think this is a wake-up call for all of us to protect the vulnerable, to resist intolerance, and to condemn behaviors and language that would incite violent behavior. We all have a stake in this so that we don't have more victims and that these three brave people's sacrifice was not in vain.

I respectfully request the Chamber observe a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, today I, with Representatives Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, and Greg Walden and the support of Sens. Wyden and Merkley, am introducing a resolution commemorating the bravery of Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah David-Cole Fletcher. These courageous heroes

stood up against hate and injustice. Rick, Taliesin, and Micah make us proud to be Oregonians. This resolution is to honor these heroes, help our community heal, and allow for introspection and broader discussion. As we begin the process of healing, we must all continue to protect one another, help one another, and work for peace and justice. I urge the House to pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 354, a resolution ``Condemning the violence against peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence on May 16, 2017, and calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and measures to be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future'' (Rollcall Vote No. 286), I would have voted ``aye.''

I would have also voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 355, a resolution ``Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Manchester, United Kingdom, on May 22, 2017, expressing heartfelt condolences, and reaffirming unwaivering support for the special relationship between our peoples and nations in the wake of these attacks'' (Rollcall Vote No. 287).

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation, along with Senator Markey in the Senate, that bring us closer to a more rational U.S. nuclear posture.

The Nuclear Cruise Missile Reconsideration Act of 2017 would limit Department of Defense and Department of Energy spending on the next generation air-launched nuclear cruise missile (ALCM), known as the Long Range Standoff weapon (LRSO), until the Trump administration submits a Nuclear Posture Review to Congress. The Air Force plans to replace 575 existing ALCMs with 1,000 or more LRSOs. The total cost to build this missile and life-extend its warhead (known as the W80-4) is projected at $20-30 billion.

The Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act would enable the U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent without shortchanging combat readiness and operations by strategically sizing our nuclear weapons programs. This bill would save us more than $100 billion over 10 years by dialing back redundant nuclear weapons systems.

Current U.S. nuclear weapons planning calls for spending $400 billion over the next decade and at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years to maintain and recapitalize our entire arsenal. This escalation would build a nuclear force far exceeding what the Pentagon and security experts have said is necessary to meet our national security objectives.

We are headed down an unsustainable path. Our all-the-above approach to recapitalizing every leg of the nuclear triad will inevitably push out Army, Navy, and Air Force conventional priorities, including what we need to counter terrorism and protect our servicemembers. We have to make some tough decisions for the sake of fiscal stability, and these bills are a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of national civics lesson, with unprecedented levels of citizen and grassroots activism driving political and policy conversations in communities across the country. It is ironic, then, that many states are trying to make it harder for Americans to participate in our democracy. On November 8, 2016, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, fourteen states had new restrictions on voting in place for the first time in a presidential election. Restrictions like these have historically targeted minority and low-income voters. This disturbing trend in state action has mirrored the weakening of campaign finance restrictions and voting rights laws by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. Even as we witness a growing civic engagement, legal and political barriers rise to unjustly diminish individual voices.

Expanding vote by mail is a clear and cost effective measure to make voting easier, not harder. Mail-in voting states Oregon, Washington, and Colorado saw among the highest voter turnout in the 2016 general election, especially notable for Oregon with nearly 250,000 new automatically registered voters. The Vote By Mail Act of 2017 will build on Oregon's successful reforms at the national level

The legislation will require states to mail ballots to all eligible voters in federal elections at least two weeks before the election. Every registered American voter would have the ability to return their ballots through the mail, using prepaid envelopes, or drop them off at secure predetermined drop-off locations like a public library or county elections office.

This bill also shifts the burden of registration from the individual to the government. It calls on state governments to collaborate with state motor vehicle agencies to maintain updated voter registration rolls for all citizens who apply for a driver's license and who do not ask to remain unregistered.

The Vote By Mail Act of 2017 is a vital step to restoring the mandate of American democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we began this debate listening to my friend from Texas talk about how he was humbled to be here today supporting the Republican bill. Well, frankly, I think he should be embarrassed, embarrassed that my Republican colleagues are afraid to have a full, open, lengthy debate about these impacts. We are taking a consequential piece of legislation, and Republicans are jamming it through without a CBO score so they don't know the impacts, and we don't have the confidence.

We do know, however, my friend from Massachusetts has read into the Record item after item, the medical association, disease advocacy groups, the American Association of Retired People, it is an honor roll of people who know about health care, who fought to preserve and protect and enhance, and the Republicans have no answer to refute this litany of experts who are independent, who are professional, who care. Who are opposed. That is something that I think Republicans should be ashamed of.

They have had 7 years chipping away at the Affordable Care Act to try to make it worse, yet it still is supported by people who know. The Republican approach should be rejected.

Mr. Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Library of Congress Caucus, I care deeply

about the services and the mission of the Library, including the U.S. Copyright Office. It's past time to bring the Library and the Copyright Office into the 21st Century, and I strongly support efforts to modernize and reform existing practices. H.R. 1695, however, might unnecessarily politicize the Copyright Office and the position of the Register and could make its work less transparent and less neutral to all parties. We should allow Dr. Carla Hayden to continue to guide the modernization process by selecting a Register, a decision enjoyed by all of her predecessors to hold the office of Librarian. While it is unclear that H.R. 1695 would do more good than harm, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of aisle on future efforts to reform and modernize the Library of Congress the copyright system.

Mr. Speaker, like many people, I have noticed a renewed interest in the 25th Amendment as we have seen erratic behavior out of the White House. As I examined the Amendment, it became clear that in the case of mental or emotional incapacity, there is a glaring flaw. In the absence of Congressional action, the constitutional language depends on actions by the Cabinet. Because the Cabinet can be fired by the President, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the President's inability to serve. It's time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the President becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office.

The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago in the wake of President Kennedy's assassination. It provides a mechanism for the succession of the President for his or her replacement in the event he or she proves unfit to serve. Under the Amendment, the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some ``other body'' designated by Congress, may remove the President from office.

While the language is straightforward, it raises a host of questions. This ``other body,'' rather than the principal officers of the executive branch, is undefined and there is no guidance for how it should operate. This legislation determines the body would consist of the Vice President, advised by a majority of the living former Presidents and Vice-Presidents. These people have been President, or in the line of succession and understand the pressures of the office and the responsibilities the Presidency entails. They are of both parties, experienced, and well regarded by the American public. It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the Vice President to examine whether the President is able to discharge the duties of the office. When there are questions about the President's ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country's best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act. This bill will ensure that oil companies can no longer sidestep paying their fair share into the dedicated trust fund created so that, in the event of an oil spill, there are resources immediately available for cleanup.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, authorized in 1990, ensures we have funding available to pay for the immediate costs of cleaning up oil spills. It is funded by an eight cents per barrel excise tax on crude oil and petroleum products. In 2011, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a misguided decision stating that oil derived from tar sands is not considered crude oil and is therefore currently exempt from the tax that pays into the Fund.

Oil that comes from tar sands is a thick, sticky form of crude oil that can be more difficult and costly to clean up than other types of crude. In 2010, for example, a pipeline owned and operated by a Canadian company, Enbridge, spilled more than 850,000 gallons of tar sands oil into a waterway that flows into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. That has been one of the largest and costliest pipeline spills in American history, with the price tag now at $1.2 billion dollars.

While I do not support the development of tar sands--doing so is environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive, we should not keep in place a loophole that lets big oil companies off the hook for cleaning up their tar sands spills. The Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act would add oil derived from tar sands and oil shale to the definition of crude oil, closing the current loophole and ensuring that oil companies pay into the fund. Oil companies already get billions of dollars in taxpayer-based subsidies, and this bill will ensure they will not be given an additional free ride on tar sands and any future oil shale development.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Limiting Inhumane Federal Trapping (LIFT) Act, which would severely restrict the use of inhumane body-gripping traps on public lands and by public officials. Every year, countless dogs, cats, and wild animals are injured and killed in body-gripping traps such as leg and foothold, Conibear, and snare traps. The animals caught in these traps are subject to intense pain that can last for hours, or even days. If they don't die immediately from the injuries, animals can suffer from dehydration, predation, or when a trapper eventually finds them. Furthermore, pets and other companion animals can be the victims of these traps. Body-gripping traps are non-selective in their victims, and can be particularly dangerous if set in popular areas. There are many effective non-lethal methods that can be deployed in place of these cruel traps.

Despite these serious risks, body-gripping traps are used by federal agencies, local governments, private entities, and individual trappers to catch creatures for their fur, keep animals away from livestock and crops, and even for recreational purposes. Wildlife Services, a federal agency notorious for its secrecy and use of inhumane animal management techniques, often uses body-gripping traps as a first resort. This results in the death or capture of thousands of animals per year in these cruel body-gripping traps. Federal agencies too often avoid more humane, effective, and non-lethal control options to control animal species. The LIFT Act would ensure that federal agencies, including Wildlife Services, do a better job of regulating trapping by non- federal entities on public lands, thereby limiting cruelty and protecting public safety.

Inhumane trapping is a problem in Oregon and across the country. There have been too many unfortunate examples of wild animals and pets falling victim to these traps. This bill complements efforts by other colleagues in the House and Senate to crack down on the use of body- gripping traps in light of the growing public acknowledgement that we cannot and should not continue to endorse the widespread use of these inhumane devices.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to this: considering hopelessly flawed legislation that the Republicans have had 7 years to prepare for and still couldn't do it right. It may still pass, but it is never going to be enacted because most people are figuring it out. They don't like it and they are being heard. That is why this bill has been stalled and the Republicans have been forced to twist the legislation in this fashion.

But the bottom line remains: TrumpCare will cost more for people who need it the most. It will hurt older and lower-income people in order to create tax cuts for people who need them the least. TrumpCare will destabilize health insurance and will slowly but surely destroy Medicaid.

It didn't have to be that way, but as long as people continue speaking out and fighting back with us, it won't be in the future, and we can have a new era in health care and in politics.

With their help, it will be.

Mr. Speaker, had I voted, I would have voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 168). This bill contains provisions that infringe on the collective bargaining and due process rights of Veterans Affairs' employees. Should this legislation become public law, it would have a damaging effect on patient care and VA recruitment, limiting the agency's efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, there was a television program some years ago that Monty Hall had: ``Let's Make a Deal.''

Well, up in the Rules Committee, we are acting out a congressional version of ``Let's Make a Deal.'' People aren't dressing up like radishes and jumping up and down, but they are trying to contort the flawed Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act into something that can somehow thread the needle and get votes through the House of Representatives. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate.

This week we are commemorating the seventh anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We don't need costumes and jumping up and down. It has reduced the uninsured rate to the lowest in our history. It has strengthened rural and small town hospitals across the country. It has extended coverage to people who otherwise would not have it. Repeal of this amazing accomplishment would be unprecedented. It would be sad, and it would be wrong.

I sincerely hope that we are going to be able to focus our attention on something that will make a difference, not forcing Americans to pay more for inferior coverage and deny it to many others.