Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I reluctantly voted for another Continuing Resolution to ensure funding for government programs in Fiscal Year 2015. It's a low bar and a sad metric when preventing another government shutdown is hailed as an accomplishment. What Congress needs to be doing--and what the American public deserves--is a return to regular order instead of governing on autopilot. We should pass all 12 of our appropriations bills because Congress needs to make thoughtful changes to our spending so they reflect the challenges and priorities of the day.

There were some encouraging exceptions. Through this CR, Congress was able to provide a short-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which supports 1.2 million jobs in the U.S., and financing for over 3,400 of America's small-business exporters. While it's important that it not expire, a nine month extension restricts the ability to finance importance large and long-term projects. Oregon's businesses looking to reach new markets abroad deserve real help. Also included in the CR is critical funding for the Centers for Disease Control and HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority to respond to the Ebola outbreak. Close to home, it provides increased funding so that we can make further progress on the VA claims backlog.

The final CR also includes an amendment that would provide the President with the limited and narrow authority he needs to address the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. My statement on the House floor and the Website explains why I felt it critical to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 6 years, I have been spending a significant amount of time making sure that the Federal Government is a better partner in helping families as they deal with some of the most difficult times they will ever encounter, as a loved one enters their last stage of life.

This often involves an elderly spouse or relative, but not necessarily. This is a challenge that faces all of us, regardless of age, health, or family circumstance. The youngest, healthiest, most vital member of your office could suffer an accident or come down with a disease this afternoon.

We all must at some point face this challenge that requires that we do a better job of meeting those needs, helping our families understand the circumstances and choices and that we make their wishes known, and that those wishes are respected.

This afternoon there is an important landmark in this effort to protect families, as the Institute of Medicine releases key facts and recommendations on improving the quality and honoring individual preferences at the end of life. It is entitled ``Dying in America,'' sort of a jarring title, but it should be required reading for everyone in government, health care, insurance, anyone who is involved with this complex web that should be supportive of families in their time of need, but too often fails them.

This report makes clear that most people nearing the end of life are not physically, mentally, or cognitively able to make their own decisions about care, and that the majority of those patients will receive acute care from physicians who don't even know them.

The default is often for more hospital days, intensive care, and emergency care, which means that there are more transitions about care settings, which can be unnerving for patients and complicate their care. All this combines to jeopardize the quality of end of life care, while obviously adding to its cost and complexity.

This panel of experts, after months of intense study, makes a compelling case that we all should be working to provide comprehensive care for individuals nearing end of life, how it should be seamless, high quality, integrated, patient-centered, family-oriented, and consistently accessible around the clock.

It should be tailored to the needs and desires of the families, and the resources that we can save by doing it right can be redirected to enhance the quality of their last days. Often done right, it will enable them to live longer as well as more comfortably.

This report is an opportunity for all of us to step back and make sure we are doing everything we can to play our part in meeting the critical responsibilities not just for our constituents, but for our family members.

Dr. Phil Roe and I have introduced H.R. 1173, the Personalize Your Care Act. There are 60 bipartisan cosponsors focusing on the Federal Government placing value on this relationship, on these critical conversations, and empowering families and patients to control the circumstances that matter so much to them.

We strongly urge that everyone looks at this Institute of Medicine report and that you cosponsor the Personalize Your Care Act. I congratulate the Institute for the careful research, the clear analysis, and the strong recommendations. It is an important step to make sure that critical assistance to support our families, that they deserve and demand, is available.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Smith. I appreciate your leadership and your courtesy.

In Iraq and Syria, we are facing an excruciating set of circumstances where there is no clear path forward.

Our challenge in the face of the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS is to reduce the suffering of innocent citizens and our allies, and to protect our security at home.

To do nothing is an option, but it is likely the worst choice.

If ISIS were only a potential threat, I would feel differently. However, ISIS is a well-funded, heavily-armed militia whose strength is increasing and whose ranks have swollen to over 30,000 and counting by some estimates. They control an ever-expanding area across Iraq and Syria's border.

To stand by, allowing ISIS to expand and strengthen its hold in Iraq and Syria, we will encourage accelerated deterioration of the security in the region that will become more difficult to address and will, ultimately, become a threat to the United States.

We must also confront those in the region who say they oppose ISIS but

have yet to take action. Those regional players have an even greater stake in this struggle than the United States.

I think the ``least bad'' option is the McKeon amendment, which does not provide for an authorization for the use of military force.

I didn't support wars in Iraq or the later surge in Afghanistan, and I certainly would not support legislation that would expose us to another open-ended broad commitment.

This proposal strictly limits the use of United States ground forces in the region and would prevent an open-ended engagement in Iraq or Syria because the authority provided in this legislation sunsets December 11.

Any airstrikes or aid would come at no additional cost to our country, which has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on war in the region, and requires the Department of Defense to reprogram existing funds or find regional allies to pay for our efforts.

This proposal to empower the President for 3 months is the most reasonable course of action at this point. It is not going to settle the long-simmering collection of conflicts in the region. Authorizing the President to train and equip highly vetted Syrian opposition fighters and strike a narrow set of ISIS targets, however, may degrade ISIS in a meaningful way.

These 3 months will give the administration an opportunity to show the progress and enlist support of other countries. Congress will then reassess these efforts in December.

In the meantime, we are not undercutting the diplomatic and military efforts of the administration. Helping the administration respond, allowing the situation to clarify, making some progress, and galvanizing support are the most we can hope for over the course of the next 3 months.

I remain open to alternatives, but after listening carefully to the debate, briefings from experts, and reviewing the materials, I see no better course at this point than the limited short-term initiative this amendment provides.

I plan on supporting the amendment and I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I have stepped away from a Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health to come to the floor. The purpose of that hearing is once again to attack the Affordable Care Act, criticisms of CMS, and to lay the foundation for the Republican goal of repealing the Act entirely.

I have frankly lost track of the number of attempts to repeal the bill. Fifty? Sixty? You know, it really doesn't matter. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay and will be throughout the tenure of President Obama.

Despite some difficulties in its implementation, the President is justly proud of the health care reform as a signal accomplishment of his administration. Many of the problems that we are facing in the implementation of the act have been as a result of Republican intransigence.

Remember, despite the fact that the legislation embodies most of what had been bipartisan principles--indeed, those strongly advocated by Republicans over the last 20 years or more--there was unrelenting opposition.

Republicans in the Senate refused to cooperate and refused to legislate, denying the 60-vote threshold necessary to move the bill forward. As a result, the bill was adopted through a process called reconciliation, where you just melded the two bills together.

The result was not a bill that anybody would have designed, but it easily could have been made better, should our Republican friends have chosen. Instead, they have continued this unyielding assault.

Even without their assistance, the results are pretty remarkable. We have the lowest rate of medical inflation in years. The Congressional Budget Office has consistently now been lowering the long-term cost estimates for Medicare.

This is probably the most powerful evidence yet that we are getting runaway health care costs under control, which was and remains the greatest single threat to the fiscal stability of our country.

We have been doing much more than merely controlling costs. There are more than 8 million people with marketplace insurance, and about three- quarters of them receive tax credits to help reduce the cost. Six million low-income people have been enrolled in Medicaid. Another 6 million children have been able to stay on their parents' health plans.

129 million--Americans, I daresay that includes most of us in Congress--can no longer be denied care because of preexisting medical conditions.

As I said, there is lots that can be done to improve the system. Today, I had a chance to address the Case Management Society of America about one of them. Congressman Petri of Wisconsin and I have introduced a transitional care benefit that would greatly reduce the chance of hospital readmissions that are not just costly, but they represent a failure to deliver health care to our citizens and reduce the stress and strain on families with loved ones who have left the hospital. This could save billions of dollars and frankly doesn't remotely depend on whether or not you support ObamaCare.

Another great example is legislation that Dr. Phil Roe of Tennessee and I have introduced, dealing with the Federal Government finally placing a value on the conversation with patients and their families for conditions surrounding the end of life.

There is value-based insurance, which I am cosponsoring with Representative Black of Tennessee. Representative Roskam of Illinois has the PRIME Act to deal with Medicare fraud. Representative Gerlach of Pennsylvania for several years has had legislation for a secure access card.

The list of opportunities is long and represents an extraordinary chance to build on reform, not just a futile effort at undermining it.

Someday, the American public is going to insist that we grow up and do our jobs, and there would be no better place to start than in building on the promise of health care reform not just to save money, but to improve the lives of Americans of all ages.

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking: refuse to legislate and then attack it for its faults; starve the IRS and CMS

of resources to properly administer the law and then complain that the IRS and CMS are not properly administering it.

The American public has a right to expect better from the people's House. Someday, they will get it.

Mr. Speaker, there is much that Congress deals with that seems intractable. We struggle with the great issues of war and peace. We view climate change and its devastating impacts and are paralyzed. We look at this still-simmering racial unrest and the painful events of Ferguson, Missouri, and largely are ignoring the underlying issues.

There is one area where government at the State and local level and here in Congress can make things a little easier, a little more sensible, and that is dealing with our failed policy of marijuana prohibition.

There was a sad article on the front page of The Times yesterday about a call center employee, paralyzed since he was 16 years old, who was fired from his job because he used medical marijuana in a State where it is legal, on his off-hours, at home at night, to control his back spasms.

That had nothing to do with his job performance, yet this person was terminated. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy, where someone having a glass of wine at home is treated radically different.

This is just one small example of a much larger problem. The cost of our failed prohibition causes untold damage to racial minorities, especially African American young men who are much more likely to be arrested and jailed, even though they use marijuana no more frequently than young White men, jailed for something most Americans now think should be legal.

That hypocrisy was on display with the NFL, who suspended a player for a year for smoking marijuana, but remember, the wifebeater was suspended for only two games until an even more graphic video of the beating forced the NFL's hand because of the public outrage; yet this is the same NFL that encourages--some would say pressures--players to be pumped with shots and pills to dull their pain, which often leads to serious consequences for these players later in life, especially prescription drug dependency.

Remember, we have an epidemic of prescription drug abuse that kills more people every year than heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine combined, and of course, no one has ever been killed from a marijuana overdose.

We are wasting lives, law enforcement resources, and money when we have more important issues to tackle. I am pleased that my State of Oregon, which was the first State to decriminalize a small amount of marijuana, now may become the next State to legalize adult use.

We have seen significant progress here in Congress to allow the cultivation of industrial hemp, allow Kentucky tobacco farmers and Oregon ranchers to grow hemp for products that are perfectly legal and you can buy in any city in America.

We have helped rein in the Federal Government interference with the 23 States that allow over 1 million people to use medical marijuana. People are picking up and moving to States that permit medical marijuana to get access to the therapeutic benefits of marijuana, which can reduce the violent epileptic seizures that torture their children.

It is time for us to do a reality check. Let's legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, and then get on to those bigger problems that need our attention, like war and peace, the consequence of a failure to deal with climate change, and the epidemic of prescription drug abuse that is killing three or four Americans every hour. Let's get our priorities straight.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 4315, a package of bills that would weaken the process by which the Administration makes Endangered Species Act (ESA) determinations.

While H.R. 4315 is nothing more than a partisan talking point, it does raise an important debate about the need to reform our regulations to make them more performance-based. Instead of establishing specific rules that tell stakeholders how to achieve specific outcomes, our regulations should instead identify exactly what we want and allow for multiple paths and discretion for achieving set outcomes. By holding local governments, states, and the private sector accountable, while allowing for flexibility, we can reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and make our regulations more efficient and effective without undercutting public and environmental protections.

The ESA has a clear intention of protecting threatened wildlife species and from 1973 to 2013, it has prevented extinction for 99% of species under its protection. H.R. 4315 does not improve the process, and only moves us away from achieving further wildlife protection and recovery goals.

While framed as a way to roll back red tape, this bill instead creates additional layers of bureaucracy through burdensome and unnecessary reporting requirements on the details of all ESA lawsuit expenditures made by the Department of Interior, the Forest Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Bonneville, Western Area, Southwestern and Southeastern Power Administrations. Given that our federal agencies are already resource-constrained, these requirements will only distract from the charge to protect threatened and endangered species.

The bill also downgrades the quality of science used in the ESA determination process, by defining all data provided by a State, Tribal or county government as the ``best available'' data without any review of whether or not it actually is the best data.

This legislation does not further the important goals of species recovery efforts. Congress should work to reform regulation in a way that helps agencies, Tribes, local government and private industry increases performance measures, not create additional bureaucracies and waste limited public resources. I oppose this legislation, yet another in a long series of bills passed this Congress to undermine important environmental protections. I was disappointed to see it pass.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to express my support for the work of EcoDistricts, a national organization founded in my district in Portland, Oregon, and which fosters innovation, community action, and sustainability at the neighborhood level.

I have spent my career working to build livable communities in my hometown of Portland and around the country. These are communities where people are safe, economically secure and healthy. The EcoDistrict model has achieved great success in achieving this goal by starting small and engaging neighbors, local businesses, and government in the process of improving communities and creating spaces where employers want to locate and families want to live.

We have seen the success of Portland's EcoDistricts, which are diverse and range from downtown near Portland State University, to the Lents neighborhood in the Southeast part of the city. This is an area that has struggled for decades with crime, air quality, transportation access, and equity issues. The engagement fostered by these districts helped approve a project to stripe bike lanes on the major arterial to Lents, a farmers market now runs every Sunday through the summer that features local immigrant communities, and volunteers are helping kids create gardens at three neighborhood schools.

The EcoDistrict model and process does more than just set goals and implement projects. It helps neighbors identify shared values and work together to make their shared spaces fit those values. I am thrilled that this model has since been expanded to other cities around the country, and look forward to continued success stories.

Thank you to the EcoDistrict team, and to the leaders involved in this initiative, for continuing this important on-the-ground work to make communities across the nation more livable.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.

I listened to my friend from Oklahoma. I wish his leadership would listen to him to create an atmosphere of certainty and move forward.

There is a reason why the stakeholders uniformly supported the Senate approach. The Senate approach said: Wait a minute, on a bipartisan basis--79 votes, 25 Republicans--we said we are not going to kick this into the next Congress, because that is where the crisis is going to be. You will be in the middle of a new Congress, who knows what the lineup is going to be in the House and the Senate, and Presidential elections, and you won't be giving the certainty to the industry that they are asking for.

That is why construction trades, contractors, the AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, the people who pave the roads, were uniformly supporting the Senate approach. They don't want to slide it into the next year.

I serve on the Ways and Means Committee. I have been trying for now 3\1/2\ years to get the Republicans who control the Ways and Means Committee to have a hearing on transportation finance. We have not had one in 3\1/2\ years. Now, that is the responsibility of the Ways and Means Committee. I left the T&I Committee hoping that I could help you in the pursuit of resources--3\1/2\ years, not a single hearing. My goodness. That is why we have had ever shorter reauthorizations. I don't count a 27-month bill as a reauthorization. And we had 21 short- term extensions.

Now, the House here, the Democrats uniformly said, let's get enough money to get us through the year and let's work together on the long- term issues, maybe we can even have a hearing on finance. When our notion didn't pass--although it was supported by all but three of our colleagues on the Democratic side--when it didn't pass, we didn't pick up our marbles and go home. We provided enough votes, because the Republicans didn't have enough votes to pass it, we provided enough votes hoping that we could get something better coming back from the Senate, and we did get something better coming back from the Senate.

There was a drafting error that we could pass a fix for in 14\1/2\ seconds on the floor of the House if we had the spirit of accommodation and followthrough, which my friend, the ranking member, has seen in his long years and has participated in. To try and advance it.

But, no, what we have seen is people are going to turn their back, they are going to slide into the next Congress, and we are going to duck all the tough issues. We haven't heard anything that deals with how we are going to move forward. The T&I Committee doesn't have a bill.

I would respectfully suggest that we ought to reject this motion, that, in fact, we ought not to reject what the Senate did. Let's work together. We can solve this in a matter of minutes if people are committed to doing so. We would be keeping faith with the people who build, who operate, and who rely upon the transportation systems in this country.

We have a unique moment in history to be on the side of that vast nonpartisan coalition that wants us to do our job. I would respectfully request that we do it, and that we commit as a body that we are not going on vacation in August, we are not going to recess to campaign, and we won't recess for the year until we do our job for the American public.

Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the comments of my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, with whom I have enjoyed working for 8 years now on the committee. I appreciate his commitment that we will have a hearing on transportation finance in September. I welcome that.

I absolutely agree that people are all over the map. Some people want to get us out of the transportation system on a Federal level-- devolution--some want more resources, some want just to limp along. I look forward to having that conversation, but I would just make three brief observations.

One is that it is true we are not scheduled to be in business in October. I think that, frankly, is wrong. I don't think we should recess to campaign when there are all these questions about transportation, and we could roll up our sleeves and actually be doing something. I, for one, would be happy to be here in October, working to avoid a cliff next May.

Second, there is a $2 billion drafting mistake on the part of the Senate. These things are not unforeseen or unexpected. We have had experience with them in the past. I am quite confident, in a matter of minutes, we could work with the Senate and put the right language in, and we would be able to avoid that problem.

Finally, we were committed to solving the problem for stakeholders in business, labor, local governments, State, transits, environmentalists, equipment manufacturers, a whole range of people would be happy if we would sit down and be able to fix the modest little technical problem and embrace what all but three Democrats voted for 2 weeks ago and what 79 Republicans and Democrats voted for in the Senate.

I appreciate what I have heard, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to see what progress we can make. I volunteer to be here in October with him.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, I stood at the back of the Senate Chamber and watched a critical debate. Under the leadership of Chairman Ron Wyden of the Senate Finance Committee, his partner, Ranking Member Hatch; Chairwoman Barbara Boxer from California, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, Bob Corker from Tennessee, and Senator Tom Carper from Delaware held forth on critical legislation to be able to help America deal with our infrastructure crisis.

America--it is no secret--is falling apart and is falling behind. It is well overdue for us to have a robust, important 6-year reauthorization to deal with our transportation needs.

We can't do that unless we resolve the funding conundrum. We have been limping along. We can't even get through the current 27-month extension without a summer slowdown, cutting back on critical Federal funding for contracts around the country.

What the Senate did was tackle this issue head on. They had a funding proposal that was fairly debated, where they were able to provide enough funding to get us through the end of the year, but not so much that it allows this Congress off the hook to slide into the next Congress, and probably the Congress after that, but instead, face up to our responsibilities now.

Mr. Speaker, the presentation of Senator Corker from Tennessee urging us to be grownups and move forward, and Senator Boxer talking about the critical needs and not to be waylaid by this fantasy that somehow the Federal Government should abandon its commitment to a National Transportation Highway System that we initiated under President Eisenhower, that somehow that is a thing of the past, turn our back on it, slash transportation funding, and just kind of wait and see what happens around the country--she was eloquent and forceful. Again, we have watched Senator Murphy and Senator Carper be focused on that which we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, we need to address and embrace the bipartisan Senate vote yesterday: 79 bipartisan votes to be able to do our job, avoid the summer shutdown, and do so in a way with a funding approach that is much more sustainable and reasonable, not the so-called pension smoothing that is ill-advised on so many levels.

Two weeks ago, Democrats in the House of Representatives were united: 99 percent supported what is, essentially, the Senate outcome. That didn't prevail on the floor of the House in a motion to recommit that I offered. But Democrats didn't pick up our marbles and quit. We actually provided the votes necessary to keep the issue alive and send the suboptimal Republican approach across to the other body. There weren't enough Republican votes to pass it, but we kept it alive hoping that we could see what happens on the Senate side, that we might have a stronger more reasonable proposal.

That optimism and cooperation on the part of the Democrats in the House was rewarded because we have this bipartisan proposal, which is, in fact, better, supported by 79 Senators.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to be able to address this bipartisan approach from the Senate. Allow us to vote on it. It ought to be the first step in our being able to avoid the summer shutdown and be able to get on with the 6-year bill.

Rarely have we seen the stakeholders so united. The American Trucking Association, the road builders, the U.S. Chamber, building and construction trades, the bicyclists, and the engineers. We watch across the country the people who build, who maintain, and depend on our infrastructure united, supportive of the approach that has emerged from the United States Senate. Even as we speak, they are contacting congressional offices, urging Members support the bipartisan Senate approach.

I respectfully urge the Republican leadership to allow those voices to be heard, to heed the stakeholders, heed the American people, give them a bill worthy of voting on. It will pass overwhelmingly, and we will be doing our job.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Democrats overwhelmingly supported a sustainable solution to the current shortfall in the highway trust fund, but when the entire House didn't adopt it, the Democrats provided the votes to move the issue on to the Senate, confident that with more time and discussion, we can do better, especially working with the vast army of stakeholders who build, maintain, and use our Nation's transportation system.

Our cooperation and confidence yesterday was rewarded as the Senate overwhelmingly passed what was essentially the Democratic motion of 2 weeks ago. With the artful and strong leadership of Chairman Wyden, Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Hatch, Senators Carper, Corker, and Murphy, they carried the argument, and they carried the day. The result was 79 votes for a sustainable solution.

Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders are united. They are out now across the country, arguing that we allow the House to vote on the Senate proposal. Let's commit to working together to solve this transportation problem.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership in working with us on this challenging problem.

Mr. Speaker, in a way this represents an amazing, positive development. I have been working in this area for 10 years, dealing with the plight of the foreign nationals that too often America was at risk of leaving behind. But in the course of our work, what has been celebrated here is that actually the challenge today is the result of the administration listening to Congress and improving a system that was fatally flawed--there is no polite way around it--but they have worked hard to improve it. As a result, the visas we have granted have expired. They are gone now. There are no more to be issued. These additional 1,000 visas are critical to be able to get us through this gap.

It is, Mr. Speaker, I think, testimony to the fact that people here in Congress can cross party lines, can work together cooperatively on problems where we are focused. I appreciate the kind words of my friend, Congressman Kinzinger. We wouldn't be where we are right now without him, his focus and his commitment.

I should probably talk about his staff, Michael Essington and Zach Hunter.

There are a list of people who are heroes in this fight that I hope we can spend a moment or two acknowledging because we did get cooperation from Majority Leader McCarthy, his security adviser, Emily Murry.

Chairman Goodlatte, who has returned to this on numerous occasions, we wouldn't be here without him.

Leader Cantor and his staff, particularly Robert Story Karem, who helped us navigate a similar crisis for the Iraq program last fall.

Our whip, Steny Hoyer, and his policy members, Daniel Silverberg and Tom Mahr, were there. At times when there is a lot going on, there is a lot of controversy, there are competing interests, but they kept their eye on the ball to move this forward.

We have got some critical people in the outside world, the NGOs, particularly the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, and their gurus, Becca Heller and Katie Reisner, who helped provide the details, the push.

And I have to admit that there is a champion in my office, my legislative director, Michael Harold, who is as responsible as any one single person who just would not give up, late nights, early mornings, weekends, dealing with things that none of us want to know that happened behind the scenes. But the point is that we are here.

I am hopeful that this signals not just a new era in terms of our being able to get past this, but that we take a comprehensive look at the Afghans and the Iraqis that are left behind because we are facing additional deadlines, and we shouldn't have to go through this on a repeated basis. It takes time that could be better spent more appropriately.

I am confident, at the end, we will do the right thing, but we shouldn't go down to the deadline. We shouldn't create doubt in the minds of people who are waiting desperately, who are trying to evade the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda, who have long memories and who have hunted these people down. They have captured them and they have killed their siblings. They have tortured them, beheaded them. That is not a fate that they deserve.

I was at the National Airport when Janis Shinwari and Captain Matt Zeller were united, and it is a moment I will never forget. But our moving forward now with this legislation and committing ourselves to the big picture, doing it right on a cooperative basis, means that it will make the difference of life or death for thousands of others that are waiting in this pipeline, and it will make all of us feel better as we conclude this summer session that we are doing it on a note of the sort of thing that we should do, how we should do it, and why we should do it.

Mr. Speaker, as early as this afternoon, the Senate debates transportation funding. It is not just about the money to stop the summer slowdown that is impacting projects and jobs all across America because we have not adequately funded our transportation needs. It is an opportunity to focus our response to the larger infrastructure crisis which is no longer just looming but is upon us.

America is literally falling apart. The American Society for Civil Engineers has famously rated our transportation with a D-plus, with an overall dismal scorecard for other infrastructure categories.

We can no longer afford to maintain our existing system in a state of good

repair. Eleven percent of our bridges are obsolete or functionally deficient. Ongoing operations, to say nothing of strategic new investments, are increasingly difficult.

This is sad because the Federal Government used to play an essential role for infrastructure throughout our history, from Benjamin Franklin's postal roads to Abraham Lincoln's transcontinental railroad to Dwight Eisenhower's interstate highway system. The ability to even imagine such accomplishments is increasingly a thing of the past. This means we are losing our competitive edge to be able to move goods efficiently. Our families are losing mobility.

Our low level of investment is being dwarfed by competitors overseas: Europe, India, Japan, and especially China.

Shanghai has 14 subway lines, a high-speed Maglev railway, two massive modern airports, 20 expressways, and a high-speed train leaving Shanghai every 3 minutes. China has spent 8\1/2\ percent of its gross domestic product for 20 years, while American investment has shrunk to 1.7 percent recently for a system that is variously rated 12th or 27th, depending on what you are looking at.

Is it any wonder that China's economy has expanded 700 percent in 20 years while America struggles to grow at 2 percent a year?

With such an overwhelming, well-established need, it is criminal that Congress is in the process of making a decision that will probably delay any meaningful opportunity to correct this situation in transportation funding for 3 years or longer.

Yes, it is essential that a financial transfer take place to the highway trust fund to stop the summer slowdown and give Congress a chance to work, but hopefully, only with enough money to work through this year. The Senate may well appropriate enough money, as the House did a couple of weeks ago, to slide into the next Congress with new committees, new leadership, perhaps, in the Senate. The situation will get no easier, no less complex, and no less expensive if this Congress abandons its responsibility.

This is a continuation of an unfortunate pattern since 2003, where a series of ever-shorter solutions and 21 temporary extensions have created near permanent uncertainty for communities who rely on the Federal partnership for the big picture, major repair, and new construction of roads, transit, and bridges.

The people who build, maintain, and depend on our transportation infrastructure are in the dark where they stand now, where they will be in 6 months, where they will be 2 years from now. It is absolutely unacceptable.

I will fight for this Congress to get on with its job now. If it means we have to work in October instead of campaigning, so be it. If it means we have to come back after the election and work into the holidays, we should do so. Congress should not recess for vacation, for campaigning, or adjourn for the year unless it has met its responsibilities for a long overdue, 6-year, robust transportation bill provided with enough sustainable, dedicated funding to stop this chronic uncertainty.

The Senate will be debating limiting funding for this year or sliding into next. They will even debate Senator Lee's proposal to slash the Federal partnership and turn it back to the States as an unfunded mandate, eliminating the gas tax and, with it, any thoughtful, overall Federal transportation system.

These are the choices that really need to be drug out into the light. They need to be talked about in the open to find out what the public thinks, and then we make a decision, let them know, and move on. America deserves no less.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act, a bill that would bring much needed resources to cleaning up toxic pollution in the Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest. The River and its tributaries provide significant ecological and economic benefits to the Pacific Northwest and the entire United States. Historically, the Columbia and its tributaries have constituted the largest salmon-producing river system in the world, with annual returns peaking at 16 million fish.

The Columbia River was designated an Estuary of National Significance in 1995 and a Large Aquatic Ecosystem (LAE) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006. Yet it remains the only LAE to receive zero

Congressional funding--despite a growing problem of toxic contamination throughout the River Basin.

Toxics are present throughout the Columbia River Basin, and are harmful to humans, fish, and wildlife. These contaminants make their way into fish tissues, which, when consumed, can be harmful for human health. Some of these toxics are known to cause cancer, and have been linked with neurological, developmental and reproductive problems, including birth defects and learning disabilities. This concern is particularly pressing for tribal populations, who consume local fish in large quantities.

Last year, the States of Oregon and Washington issued fish advisories warning the public to protect itself against mercury and PCB contamination by limiting consumption of resident fish species living in the 150 mile stretch of river between Bonneville and McNary Dams.

This bill would authorize the EPA to establish a voluntary, competitive Columbia River Basin grants program for projects that assist in eliminating or reducing pollution, improving water quality, monitoring, and promoting citizen engagement. Eligible entities may include States, Indian tribes, local governments, nonprofits, and private landowners. The legislation authorizes $50 million per year for five years for this effort, which are estimated to create between 700 and 1,000 family wage jobs per year in the region.

This bill is supported by a diverse group of stakeholders including the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and Salmon- Safe. Now is the time to clean up the Columbia River and improve water quality and river health for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, The New York Times produced a carefully balanced rationale for ending the Federal ban on marijuana. In more than 40 years, this failed attempt at prohibition has been hopelessly out of step.

The Times editorial points out the fallacy the as States marching toward decriminalization, medical marijuana, and adult use, the Federal Government maintains its schizophrenic posture, pretending that marijuana is as dangerous--as heroin or LSD, worse than cocaine or methamphetamine.

While the current administration has been somewhat tolerant of the actions that have taken place in three-quarters of our States that are acting to decriminalize, authorize medical marijuana, and, more recently, in Colorado and Washington State, to legalize adult use, there is no guarantee that future administrations will have a lighter touch.

That is wrong. As the Times and others have pointed out, there are significant financial costs and huge human costs of this failed experiment in prohibition which, falls disproportionately on young men of color, especially African Americans.

The Times readily acknowledged that this issue has troubling aspects. We have all struggled, as a society, to deal with drugs, legal and illegal. Addiction to cigarettes and alcohol, prescription drugs and narcotics extracts a heavy toll.

We are all deeply concerned about the impact that marijuana and other dangerous substances have on young people. This is particularly a problem dealing with the development of the young brain affected by marijuana use.

While this clearly can have serious consequences, so, too, there are horrific costs associated with alcohol and tobacco, to say nothing of other illegal drugs. We, as a society, have struggled with these challenges, but we have actually had some measure of success with controlling use of cigarettes and alcohol.

The use by adults of tobacco has declined two-thirds in a generation. There is no reason to think we can't do the same for marijuana if we act rationally.

As a practical matter, the current system doesn't accomplish keeping it out of the hands of children, while it does inflict that real damage on casual users and those young men of color.

Currently, there is a vast illegal network that supplies the public and children with marijuana. No one checks ID. There is no business license to use.

For those of us working to reform our flawed marijuana laws, the Times editorial marks a significant milestone, joining other publications and organizations arguing for a new approach. It comes while we in Oregon, which was the first State to decriminalize marijuana, will vote this fall to become the third State to legalize adult use.

The Times editorial and the promise of more discussion in the paper joins with other editorial pages across the country. The Portland Oregonian had a particularly thoughtful and very positive editorial just the day before, on Saturday, the 26th of July, talking about the opportunities in our State for legalization.

The Nation's editorial pages are playing a constructive role in promoting a broad, nuanced, careful discussion of the marijuana policy, its failure, and the alternatives. Here in Congress we have started the discussion and have seen growing awareness among significant floor action that slightly reduces the outmoded and illogical restrictions.

It is time for the administration and Congress to elevate this discussion to keep pace with what is going on with opinion leaders like the Nation's editorial writers and the march towards rational policy that is taking place in States across America.

It is not too late for this Congress to make constructive contributions. We have several opportunities: the cultivation of industrial hemp; changing banking regulations so we don't force legal marijuana businesses to be all cash; tax equity; and protecting medical marijuana from heavy-handed Federal interference.

The recent positive votes in Congress suggest that more progress is possible before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of H.R. 4980, which would prevent the sex trafficking of foster youth, promote adoption, and strengthen international child support

This measure represents an agreement with Senators Wyden and Hatch on three bipartisan bills that the House passed overwhelmingly: the Promoting Adoption and Legal Guardianship for Children in Foster Care Act, the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act, and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Improving Opportunities for Youth in Foster Care Act. I voted to approve all three.

While this bill does not address every challenge of foster youth and child sex trafficking facing our nation, it is a positive first step. It also demonstrates Congress can work together to prevent the negative treatment of foster youth that can lead to child sex trafficking. For children involved with the state child welfare agency, states must develop methods to identify, document, and determine services for victims of child sex trafficking and those who are at risk of becoming victims. The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national advisory committee which will have two years to review, and recommend best practices to states to address sex trafficking of children and youth.

In my home state of Oregon, 8,686 children were in foster care on an average daily basis last year and 12,366 children spent at least one day in foster care of some kind. Nationally, the average foster child will spend nearly two years in foster care and will change homes an average of three times. The legislation also provides a much needed continuation of adoption incentives and FY14 Family Connection grants. It also includes a number of helpful provisions targeted at protecting our most vulnerable youth from becoming victims and oftentimes repeat victims of trafficking.

I will continue to work towards further efforts in Congress to end child sex trafficking and improve our foster care system so that our communities can be safer, healthier, and more economically secure.