Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the CIDER Act, legislation that will support the growing number of craft and entrepreneurial cider makers across the country. The cider industry has tripled in size since 2007 and there has been tremendous growth in Oregon. As these businesses get off the ground, I am working with them to ensure a strong federal partnership and to break down arbitrary barriers that prevent this industry from realizing its potential.

During the fermentation process, a variety of factors can lead to small changes in the composition of a cider's alcohol content and carbonation. Because of the narrow way that hard cider is currently defined in the tax code, these small variations can lead to cider being taxed at a rate fifteen times higher than what the statute clearly intended. The legislation will better tailor IRS rules to reflect variations in craft ciders. This legislation will update the tax definitions to reflect the growing diversity of the U.S. cider market, better match international rules and strengthen U.S. export opportunities, and broaden the definition to include both pear and apple ciders.

Production nationally has been robust, more than tripling from 9.4 million gallons in 2011 to 32 million gallons in 2013. Cider revenues in the U.S. have been just as impressive, tripling from $178 million in 2007 to $601 million in 2012. Providing clear regulations and a tax structure that mirrors the real world for this agricultural product will allow this industry to continue its expansion while making ciders that people want to drink.

Cider making is sometimes closer to an art than a science. As the American apple and pear hard cider industry becomes more prominent on the world stage, and cider becomes a beverage choice for more Americans' developing palettes, we need to ensure that cideries have every opportunity to expand and meet the needs of this growing market without an unfair tax burden.

Madam Speaker, once more, Republicans are seeking to limit women's access to safe reproductive health care through H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This is a sweeping ban on abortion coverage and another callous attempt to insert Congress into the most personal of conversations between a woman and her physician and I did not vote for it.

Last week marked the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. It is exasperating that we still have to go through this annual charade as Republican leadership tries to force those of us who support women and their reproductive choices to take a ``hard vote.''

It is not hard for me to stand with the millions of women who depend on access to safe, legal abortion. It is not hard for me to vote against any bill that imposes the will of an intolerant, albeit vocal, minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is not hard for me to protect freedom of choice, because it is right and it is just.

Instead of bringing up legislation to strengthen our economy or improve our infrastructure, Republican leadership is choosing to focus its efforts on legislation that will trump women's health, override family decisions, and compromise the ability of women and their doctors to deal with reproductive issues. It's a blatant attack on women and it's not hard for me to say that it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, last night for the State of the Union address by President Obama, my guest was a Portlander, Cheryl Strayed, the author of the best-selling book, ``Wild,'' who is currently being portrayed on the big screen by Reese Witherspoon. This epic story is about how a young woman, reeling from the loss of her mother and the cascading challenges of her life, undertook a journey 1100 miles along the Pacific Coast Trail. It was 96 days of an amazing struggle, overcoming all sorts of difficulties, adversities, as she helped work out her own challenges and issues.

I invited her because I thought the story that she portrayed, the experience that she had, was an interesting metaphor for the sorts of things that we should be doing here. Perhaps we might be able to come together as a Congress, supporting legislation that would help protect some of those special places that are portrayed in her powerful book and in the excellent movie.

In the course of her visit, another thought has made its way to me as I watched her interact with dozens of young people in a variety of meetings on Capitol Hill, fellow Members of Congress, and many other people who were touched by the story of her journey and it made a profound effect on them. She continues to receive hundreds of emails a day from people who were inspired by that effort and her magnificent book.

It occurs to me that it is an appropriate metaphor for what our challenge is as Members of the 114th Congress, because this, after all, is a 2-year journey on behalf of the American people. The question for us is: If we can struggle with that heavy pack, navigate areas where sometimes the trail is a little obscure, can we put our trust in strangers who help us along this difficult journey? Can we be resolute in putting one foot in front of another on behalf of the American public?

Mr. Speaker, it was a very profound experience to watch those interactions, after having seen the movie, and having been entranced by the book. I am absolutely convinced that this is our moment, our journey into something that doesn't necessarily have to be ``Wild,'' even though there is a roller coaster of legislative activity. I am convinced there ought to be enough common interest, common commitment, common goals that we ought to be able to tease out elements that enable us to be successful in our journey.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that people will reflect on that experience of this young woman who was able to overcome adversity and open up an amazing chapter in her life and beyond. I hope we will be able to do the same for the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, the momentum for an increase in the Federal gas tax continues to build. This weekend's excellent New York Times editorial made the case why the increase is needed and long overdue. Costs of repair increase dramatically the longer they are delayed. In the meantime, Americans paid billions of dollars for congestion, wasted gas, and repairing damage to their cars, and thousands of lives are lost due to unsafe roads. This followed an editorial in The Washington Post making the same argument, joining USA Today, L.A. Times, and a variety of newspapers across the country.

Recently, we have seen eight Senators from both parties who have been

identified as stepping up, either supporting a gas tax or at least being open to it. We have seen leadership at the State level as eight States in the last 2 years have increased gas taxes, including some very red States like Wyoming and New Hampshire. Here in the House, there are already 136 Members who have signed a bipartisan letter urging the leadership to act on providing appropriate funding that is sustainable and dedicated.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have a solution. This issue has been studied extensively, including two Presidential commissions during the Bush administration. The conclusion was that there is no better, more effective solution than simply raising the gas tax, which hasn't been increased in 22 years.

People know America is falling behind as it is falling apart. The concern about the financial impact of a gas tax increase on families is waning. As gas prices plummet, my corner gas station is selling gasoline at $1.60 per gallon less than its peak last year.

I will be reintroducing the funding proposal I had in the last Congress. That legislation was widely supported by a range of interests that included labor, business, the professions, local government, transit, environmentalists, truckers, AAA, and cyclists. They all agreed that there is a critical need to fund investments in rebuilding and renewing America.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments today are basically the same that were used by President Ronald Reagan in his Thanksgiving Day address in 1982. He used his nationwide radio speech 33 years ago to call for an increase that more than doubled the Federal gas tax. He pointed out that that tax is actually for the people who benefit from using it, that the user fee would cost less than the damage to repair their cars from damage due to poor conditions from roads and bridges. As President Reagan said, it would probably be less than a pair of shock absorbers.

He pointed out that the gas tax then, as now, had not been raised in more than two decades, and that repairing infrastructure that was failing would put hundreds of thousands of people to work while it protected the investment in our infrastructure as well as in our automobiles

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to step up. The States are doing their part. People are exploring innovative financing approaches involving the private sector. People are looking at creative ways to design and build projects, but there is no substitute for the 25 percent of infrastructure funding that comes from the Federal partnership. It is absolutely essential for projects that are multiyear, projects that are multimodal and that involve a number of jurisdictions, often a number of States.

This May we face the expiration of the short-term highway trust fund fix from last summer. We are back in the exact same situation we were then. Failing to address the funding issue head-on has meant that we haven't had a 6-year reauthorization approved by Congress since 1997. Since then, we have had two ever-shorter reauthorizations and 21 temporary extensions. Over $60 billion of general fund money has been needed to just prop up our inadequate system.

Mr. Speaker, no country has become great planning and building its infrastructure 6 months at a time. It is time to capitalize on falling oil prices, on the momentum that is building around the country, and the realization that we need to act now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me and, indeed, President Reagan in this long overdue action. America will be better off, the economy will be stronger, communities will be more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, while I do not support the development of tar sands--an environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive process--we should not continue a loophole that lets oil companies off the hook for covering destruction from oil spills.

In 1990, we authorized the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the immediate costs of cleaning up oil spills, and it is funded by an excise tax on crude oil and petroleum products, but the oil derived from tar sands that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline is not subject to this tax.

Since that oil is a thick, sticky form of crude, more difficult and costly to clean up than other types of oil, the exemption makes no sense, especially if it is as safe as some allege. That is why yesterday I reintroduced the Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act, which would ensure that oil pays into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that travels through this pipeline if it is ever constructed.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

``Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.''

Mr. Speaker, today, along with twelve of my colleagues, 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. If enacted, the legislation would generate approximately $665 million over ten years.

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 cent 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, the same type that will flow through the Keystone XL Pipeline if approved, is not considered crude oil and is therefore currently exempt from the tax that pays into the Fund.

In 2013, we imported approximately 925 million barrels of crude oil from Canada, with over 400 million of these barrels coming from tar sands and not subject to the tax that goes into the cleanup fund. This is a significant liability, without any investment being made for if and when there is a tar sands spill.

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.

I do not support the development of tar sands--doing so is environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive. Moreover, 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, as we begin the new Congress, America sees the two parties in both the House and the Senate, along with the White House, making statements that establish positions that distinguish one from another.

But what if we started not by defining our differences but with efforts that would bring us together?

We ended the last Congress with the passage of the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, something I have worked on with my friend and partner from Texas, Ted Poe, for years here in the House. There was extraordinary bipartisan leadership demonstrated by Congressmen Charlie Dent, Aaron Schock, Senator Dick Durbin. It did take 6 years, but this bipartisan effort for a humanitarian cause, especially benefiting women and girls around the globe, was worth the time and effort.

The legislation focused and enhanced American efforts dealing with international water and sanitation. Today 152 million hours will be spent by women and girls traveling to get water, often dirty water, to meet the needs of their families in some of the poorest regions of the planet.

This legislation created more focused American leadership, and it was backed up by unprecedented increases in American aid for water and sanitation. It will pay benefits for generations to come for millions, making friends for America while it allows children to live longer and makes the lives of women and girls more bearable. And we did it together.

Are there other such candidates for legislation that will bring us together? Dr. Phil Roe and I have been working on the Personalize Your Care Act with medical groups, advocacy organizations, experts in palliative care, hospitals, the community of faith.

This is an effort to make sure that at the end of life for our loved ones, they actually get the treatment they want, not health care on autopilot.

We have had tragic stories about how medical decisions by reflex and default have put people in isolated ICUs in painful and foreign settings when actually most of them, and in fact most of us, would rather be comfortable at home, surrounded by our loved ones.

There has been a brilliant and exhaustive report by the Institute of Medicine that deals with the problems and concerns and how we can do better. Dr. Atul Gawande's bestselling book, ``Being Mortal,'' makes it clear that there are crying needs and simple, commonsense compassionate solutions.

There is a revolution taking place in health care today. What if, as part of that revolution, Congress started the new year with our bipartisan legislation, the Personalize Your Care Act, to make sure those families understand their choices, that their choices are known, and--most important--their choices are respected?

We had dozens of cosponsors and broad support across the medical establishment and the community of faith. Maybe we can pick up where we left off and have this legislation bring us together to protect our families and start the year on a united front, giving families the protection they want for the care they need.

There is no reason we in Congress need to spin our wheels and shout at and past each other. Mr. Speaker, I could have made this same presentation not about the water and sanitation, but about how this Congress came together in the final hours to help save the lives of Afghans and Iraqis who are now at risk from the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda because they helped Americans as guides and interpreters when we needed them.

These are some of my examples of bipartisan cooperation that are important which we have done in the past. I would invite my colleagues to share their agenda of bipartisan, low or no-cost legislation that allows us to work together.

It is not too late to start the year and this Congress right.

Mr. Speaker, America's middle class is facing a crisis. Despite the fact that productivity has soared and profits have increased, these gains are not flowing to the vast majority of Americans.

In 81 percent of America's counties, median income today is lower than it was 15 years ago. After adjusting for inflation, today's average hourly wage has the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, this despite the fact that American workers are producing far more. Productivity has increased 74 percent since 1973.

There is a reason why the wealth is concentrated at the top. There are a myriad of tiny little changes that have a cumulative effect on the vast majority of American workers. Refusing to raise the minimum wage, attacking the right to unionize, special tax benefits for a few, and today's legislation are all examples.

No doubt changing the definition of 40 hours for purposes of the Affordable Care Act will benefit a few businesses, but there are far more employees who work 40 hours a week or more than who work 30 to 40 hours, and as has been pointed out by the conservatives at the National Review and The Weekly Standard, it is easier to drop employees to 39 hours a week than to 29 hours a week. This meaning this proposal is going to reduce far more hours of work and wages for whom it matters the most.

Wages aren't the only benefit at stake. As has been pointed out, according to the CBO, a million workers will lose health insurance through their employer, half of whom will lose it altogether. The other half will be shifted to the government through Medicaid, increasing spending by more than $50 billion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, this would be one of the myriad of policies that further disadvantages America's middle class. This is another step by my Republican friends to deny more people the benefits of that work, widen the divide, and disadvantage not only families today but far into the future.

Mr. Speaker, there is always a great deal of excitement surrounding a new Congress and a new year. One area that has been very encouraging is the focus on rebuilding and renewing America. That was where we left off in the last Congress, frustrated by an inability to produce a 6-year reauthorization, largely because of an inability for Congress to address meaningfully how it would be funded. This continues a struggle of almost two decades, as we have not increased the gas tax or developed a viable, sustainable, adequate alternative.

It is widely recognized that America is falling apart and falling behind. Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, now has put us at a second-tier status, with America at risk of falling ever further behind.

The deplorable state of our infrastructure is actually costing Americans far more to endure the damage to their cars and the delays to their lives through congestion than simply funding an alternative and fixing it.

It is encouraging that the administration and people in both parties, in both Chambers, might be prepared to address the issue anew. There are some short-term stopgap solutions which would nowhere near solve the problem but nudge us in the right direction.

In the Senate there is bipartisan interest in and openness to a comprehensive solution including the gas tax. Senators Bob Corker and his partner Chris Murphy have been champions. Senator Tom Carper continues his leadership and advocacy for the gas tax solution. Senator John Thune, a key Republican leader, has signaled his openness to the gas tax, which is the simplest, most logical, and most effective solution.

Even the problematic proposal to use dynamic scoring to evaluate budget proposals could make a difference for the prospect of solving this huge problem for America if it would be applied in the spirit of dynamic scoring.

The Standard & Poor's research report, ``U.S. Infrastructure Investment: A Chance to Reap More Than We Sow,'' pointed out the overwhelming economic impact in terms of jobs created, economic benefits that actually exceeded the direct amount invested, and long- term deficit reduction of $200 million for every $1.2 billion invested. This should be one of the easiest economic decisions we ever make.

In an era of low interest rates, gasoline prices falling dramatically, when there are still hundreds of thousands of people ready to go to work at family wage jobs rebuilding this country, the economic case has never been stronger.

By all means, let's evaluate all of the proposals. Let's expand the discussion. Let's look at the leadership of States around the country that are stepping up to do their part. State, local, and private investment all have a role to play, to be sure, but recognize that the 25 percent of infrastructure funding that comes from the Federal Government plays a critical role. Let this Congress give America a solution that is sustainable, not one that would put us back in the same fix in a year or two or even sooner.

Let's have a revenue source that is dedicated so that we can begin on longer-term projects that demand multimodal, multistate, multiyear solutions and that is large enough to give us a long overdue 6-year comprehensive reauthorization. Stable, dedicated, big enough to do the job--this is a test that the new Congress and administration should meet to revitalize our economy and rebuild and renew this great country.

At a time of dramatically falling oil and gas prices, when the public is suffering from Congress dithering on our transportation and other infrastructure needs, there will never be a better time to heed the advice of President Ronald Reagan 33 years ago in his Thanksgiving Day radio address to the country to raise the gas tax and put Americans to work fixing the problem that has only gotten worse. It was good advice then. It is good advice today.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of frustration that I voted no on H.R. 5806. I strongly support some of the individual provisions; indeed, I am the leading Democratic cosponsor of the provisions relating to charitable contributions from individual retirement accounts.

I have been a leading supporter of land trusts, working closely with them to fix challenges raised by application of the estate tax for instance, and broadly supporting their work across the country to protect and preserve our nation's heritage and open spaces. I have worked hard to improve resources for Oregon's food banks and to end hunger both at home and abroad.

Today, we are abandoning any semblance that this Congress is going to work on major accomplishments before we adjourn.

With this and similar tax extender votes, Congress appears to have given up on deficit reduction, despite my colleagues otherwise voracious appetite for it--an appetite that led to House Republicans attempting to cut nutrition assistance to poor Americans by $39 billion last year. Section five of this bill, in fact, specifically strikes the Republican's own PAY-GO rules. Budget-busting proposals are roaring through here with no semblance of honoring the Republicans' own budget rules or their budget resolution.

With this and similar tax extender votes, Congress appears also to have given up on tax reform because we are not going to be

able to have meaningful tax reform if we are just willy-nilly going to rush all these provisions through.

My colleague, Chairman Camp, worked for years to produce a deficit- neutral tax reform, which had much to commend it, and I commend him for his hard work. All of these provisions of tax extenders were addressed in his tax reform, but they were dealt with differently. Not all were extended permanently. Some were modified and some were repealed, as part of a deliberative process to evaluate their impact and to not break the bank. This vote--like similar unpaid for permanent tax extender votes--abandons that effort.

This bill is not going to be enacted into law as the President's veto threat makes clear, and Congress will pick up where it left off--and frankly, where Mr. Camp left off--as we work with our colleagues in the other body and our constituents to move forward on the things that we are all committed to in a way that is fiscally responsible, is bipartisan and thoughtful, to get the outcomes we all share.

Mr. Speaker, it's inexcusable that the least productive Congress in history has waited until the final hour to produce an appropriations package this flawed. The bill fails to take advantage of opportunities to save money, ranging from defense to agricultural reforms, and has instead chosen to make indefensible reductions across critical programs.

In most areas, from health reform to education, the resources committed are insufficient to keep up with inflation let alone tackle the problems that confront America's families.

I have deep concerns regarding a policy rider snuck into the bill that would allow wealthy campaign donors to contribute ten times as much money as the current individual caps allow, further flooding our political system with dark money. Campaign finance provisions are completely non-germane to this bill, and the last thing America needs is to make it easier to spend more money on campaigns.

Instead of making difficult choices about how to fund the Department of Defense, and our sprawling nuclear arsenal, we've chosen an ``all of the above'' approach, providing the Pentagon with everything it wants, and then some. Managed to at once give it too much for wrong things and refuse to begin reforms the DOD knows it needs and wants to carry out.

The bill commits the U.S. to rebuilding our nuclear triad of ground- based missiles, bombers, and submarines, an effort that could cost over $1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years and ensure nuclear weapons remain a foundation of U.S. defense planning.

Nothing epitomizes this self-destructive urge than the dramatic cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The $10.9 billion in funding for the IRS represents a cut of $350 million from last year. Since fiscal year 2010, Congress has cut IRS funding by almost $1.2 billion--10 percent--forcing the agency to slash its full-time, permanent workforce by 13,000 employees. This occurred even as the country added approximately 7 million new taxpayers. As a result, the IRS's current staffing level is 26 percent below the number of employees it had 18 years ago.

Among these cuts, the IRS has lost 5,000 enforcement personnel, such as revenue agents and criminal investigators. This leaves billions of dollars in tax revenue uncollected. Every dollar that we invest in the IRS generates $7 in return. Compliance with our tax code is largely voluntary and these cuts make it much harder for taxpayers to navigate the system. The IRS was already predicting that only 53 percent of taxpayers who call for help would get through to an IRS agent during the 2015 tax season. Even then, the caller would have an average wait of 34 minutes--while the other half would be left to fend for themselves. This is no way to run a government.

I've met with IRS employees reduced to tears by their frustration being unable to help taxpayers in a timely manner. If someone can get through, they then get a taxpayer who is frustrated, probably angry, as well as confused.

The Homeland Security appropriations bill was one of the most bipartisan this year. Holding up full-year funding for this agency, and in turn national security, in an effort to undermine the Administration's executive order on immigration reform is a reckless, maybe even dangerous game.

The bill includes a number of problematic environmental provisions.

Moving away from the scientific consensus, it continues to bar the Department of Energy from enforcing important standards for light bulb efficiency. It prohibits the EPA from regulating lead ammunition. It prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing any Endangered Species Act listing rules for sage grouse species. It cuts important farm bill conservation programs. It also maintains ever lower funding for the EPA, while environmental challenges mount. Since 2010, that agency's budget has been cut by more than $2 billion dollars, or 21 percent.

The bill also includes a very problematic rider that interferes with the direct will of the voters in the District of Columbia. The language is ambiguous, and I share the sentiments of Representatives Norton and Serrano that this amendment should not be interpreted as halting the DC measure entirely. Regardless of the interpretation, it is very troubling that Congress interferes with the DC Council's ability to govern to make the city safer and reflect the wishes of its citizens.

America cannot afford to roll the dice on financial reform. This bill rolls back Section 716 of Dodd-Frank, which attempts to deal with the dangerous liability stemming from derivatives trading in taxpayer- insured banks. America cannot afford to risk another taxpayer bailout for Wall Street, while we are still recovering from the last meltdown.

These and many other provisions are deeply concerning and more bad provisions will emerge as people finally have time to read the bill. Nonetheless, in more than 1,000 pages and over a trillion dollars of spending, there are some bright spots.

For more than a decade, I've worked to increase access to clean drinking water and sanitation for the world's poorest populations. The cornerstone of this effort has been through the implementation of my legislation, the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. This is funded in this bill at its highest level ever. This demonstrates a significant commitment from the U.S. to prioritize this type of development assistance and is an example of what is possible with bipartisan cooperation.

I am pleased the bill makes it clear that Congress believes the Department of Transportation should develop separate performance measures for non-motorized traffic injuries and fatalities. It's past time to put bicyclists and pedestrians on equal footing with motorists when it comes to distributing safety money.

This bill also includes two amendments that I cosponsored and worked closely on to create a more rational drug policy. One amendment, led by Mr. Rohrabacher, would stop DOJ and DEA from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. This represents a historic shift by the federal government in marijuana policy. This suggests that Congress may finally catch up with how most Americans think and behave.

Another amendment, led by Mr. Massie, would ensure that the DEA cannot intervene in legal hemp research by universities and state departments of agriculture. This is the final step in a process that we began almost two years ago, by first passing an amendment to the farm bill allowing the research. This additional language should finally protect those programs.

As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, I am pleased to see a

few key provisions in this legislation that set the stage for future productive efforts, such as animal welfare enforcement funding and language restricting funding for horse slaughter.

These and other positive provisions, however, in no way offset the harm caused by the many destructive elements and the horrible precedent set for future action. A Republican House majority that campaigned on promises to reform and respect the process has instead abased it. A massive bill released too late to read, let alone understand, makes a mockery of their promises and I refuse to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the unanimous passage today of H.R. 4926, which names a segment of Interstate 35 the ``James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway.''

Jim Oberstar was an infrastructure partisan, a transportation expert, and had more influence over the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee--a committee he served as staffer, member, ranking member, and chairman--than anyone in the last 50 years. And he was like an uncle to me.

Jim was a man of remarkable memory and learning. He spoke a half- dozen languages.

He never stopped fighting for what he believed in and what he knew was right for his district, his State, or for the American people. In his long career, he guided the passage of dozens of landmark laws and shaped the transportation policy of our country for the better, creating an infrastructure system that is more efficient, more sustainable, and safer than before Jim entered politics.

He was an incredible cyclist, a skilled and passionate legislator, and a good friend. I pleased that H.R. 4926 will literally cement his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, just squeaking under the wire, and I am not going to do a George Miller imitation, talking over the Speaker and pounding the lectern, nor am I going to try and repeat what has come before us in terms of talking about the legendary accomplishments of the two gentlemen. I just want to mention one.

When I first came here, I was privileged to be part of a small discussion group of faith and politics. It had Henry and George, and it opened a face to me of people who cared about their colleagues, an extraordinary kindness that both had given to me and my family, and had given a face to this institution that is too often missing now. And I think that may be their greatest contribution.

Mr. Speaker, nearly three-and-a-half years ago, Congressman Ted Poe and I set out on a joint effort to increase access to clean drinking water and sanitation for the world's poorest. His commitment to work together on this effort was for all of the right reasons. The most important, however, was his clear understanding that politics stops at water.

And last night, our years of work and shared efforts were rewarded when the House passed the bipartisan Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act.

My efforts began over a decade ago, and were encouraged by the late Senator Paul Simon, the namesake of this bill and my 2005 Water for the Poor Act. It's fitting that on this day--the anniversary of his passing on December 9, 2003--Congress would honor his memory by considering a bill that aims to fulfill one of his greatest passions. This country owes him a great deal for his vision and foresight. Thank you, Senator Paul Simon, and to his wife, Patti, who continues to support his important work.

The passage of the Water for the World Act is historic.

Never before has the U.S. had a Global Water Strategy for how to effectively deal with growing water scarcity in all corners of the world. We now have a blueprint on how to help those in need, while at the same time planning for, and then implementing, efforts to prevent and mitigate water-related conflict. The U.S. can no longer afford to play a modest role, and instead must take up the mantle of leadership. This bill ensures that will happen.

None of this would have been possible if it weren't for efforts of literally thousands of people all across the country that took action and urged Congress to pass the Water for the World Act. In October, I joined Charlie Dent and over 60,000 of our closest friends in Central Park for a rally calling on Congress to act on this critical legislation. It worked.

The Water for the World Act was endorsed by over 80 NGOs, nearly half of whom are faith-based organizations. While all played a critical role, there are a few that deserve individual recognition.

Going all the way back to 2005, we would have barely moved the needle if it weren't for Malcolm Morris and Mark Winter of Living Water International.

David Douglas has been a constant source of encouragement and support.

I also want to thank Lisa Schechtman of WaterAid, John Sparks of the Millennium Water Alliance, Lisa Bos of World Vision, John Oldfield of WASH Advocates, and Erin Rein (``Reen'') of InterAction. They have been on the front lines of this effort, ready to jump into action at a moment's notice.

Others have been indispensible as well, including Habitat for Humanity, Water.org, and the Global Poverty Project.

I also want to thank my House colleagues who personally invested a great deal of time into bringing this bill to the floor. Without Ted Poe, the issue of increasing access to clean drinking water and sanitation would not have the bipartisan support and appreciation it deserves. He made this happen. Thank you, Ted. I also want to thank Chairman Royce. The Chairman went out of his way to make Water for the World a priority and is the latest extension of his efforts to meaningfully reform our aid programs.

Just as important to this effort have been our friends and allies at USAID and the Department of State. Starting with former Secretary of State Clinton, who made water a focal point of her time in Foggy Bottom, and her Special Advisor for Water Resources, Dr. Aaron Salzberg. And Christian Holmes at USAID, the first-ever Global Water Coordinator, with whom I look forward to continuing to work.

Finally, as every Member of Congress knows, we wouldn't make much progress on anything if it weren't for the dedicated, hardworking staff that actually run the place. Without the tireless efforts and expertise from Joan Condon and her colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and from Luke Murry in Congressman Poe's office, it would have been nearly impossible to secure this important victory for water and sanitation.

I want to conclude by thanking my staff. It seems like generations of Team Blumenauer have been involved in this effort at one point or another. From Judah Ariel to Steph Cappa, to Michael Harold, thank you!

Let's hope this shining example of bipartisan cooperation is not only a source of holiday cheer, but also an example all of us in Congress can draw on in the New Year.