Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today many Members of Congress awoke listening to NPR for yet another story about Norfolk, Virginia, the area of the United States on the eastern seaboard where we have seen the most rapid increase in the sea level. This matters, being home to the largest naval base in the world, placing in question its long-term survivability.

A story in The Washington Post several weeks ago talked about the impact that this is having on the waterfront, including one church that is being forced to relocate. I love the pastor's comment that his parishioners should not have to consult a tide table to determine whether or not they can go to church.

The morning news also included the Supreme Court's third affirmation of the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, setting hopefully at rest the long-term battle over whether or not we can deal with this critical area of carbon pollution.

We also have seen a media blitz from a coalition of respected senior officials--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents stretching back to the Nixon administration--talking about the impact of climate change, particularly as it deals with business. We have had a report from four Republican EPA administrators talking about the need to support the EPA's effort with the new rule for carbon emissions.

Today, on the steps of Capitol Hill as I passed, there were representatives from the Citizens Climate Lobby from all over the country who are fanning out across the Capitol making their case.

Mr. Speaker, the science is, in fact, clear. We have very severe problems associated with carbon pollution and the impacts that humans have had on climate. We are looking at reports that ought to sober everybody around here, tripling the number of days of 95 degree-plus weather, thinking about the impacts that rising sea level is going to have on coastal States.

Louisiana, for example, is looking at up to 5 percent of their insurable land being underwater by midcentury, perhaps 20 percent by the turn of the century. There is $1.5 trillion of insurable properties that is likely to be underwater.

It is time for us to stop debating the science. The science is, in fact, clear. It is time for us to look at opportunities. The EPA rule is going to go into effect. We all ought to be engaged with taking advantage of the flexibility that has been proposed by the administration to fine-tune it to the needs and opportunities in our State.

It is important that we start work on the implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Virtually every expert--conservative, liberal, economists, even many business leaders--agrees that having a revenue-neutral carbon tax to change the habits of American business and households, using the revenues to reduce the impact on lower-income citizens and on small business, is the quickest, fastest way to be able to make progress on climate protection.

We can, in fact, slow the impact, and we can prepare for what we cannot avoid.

Experts in climate science, joined by hardheaded business people and citizen activists, all agree that it is time for Congress to get engaged, for Congress to stop this active denial, and come together on simple commonsense steps that we can make to strengthen our communities to slow the increase of climate change and be able to prepare for stronger opportunities in our local economies as we move to take advantage of this.

Everybody should take action, so that all our families can be safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, if I could, by thanking my friend from California for his ongoing leadership, advocacy, and focus on how we are going to rebuild and renew the country--making these critical investments, putting people to work, and calling upon this Congress to get in gear to be able to move the country forward. I appreciate his courtesy and his leadership.

I would like to begin, if I could, by turning to another of my colleagues from Kansas City, Missouri, Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who is a gentleman who was kind enough to give me a visa to visit his district recently. I watched not just the affection that his constituents had for him but the big plans, evidenced in his community, that were dealing with how we put the pieces together for a more sustainable future--a vision for transportation. It was fascinating for me to watch, and I appreciate his allowing me to be a part of it.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas City at this time.

Thank you very much, Congressman Cleaver. I appreciate your painting a very powerful picture, taking it home, as an example, and the work that you have done, both in Congress and as a local leader, a mayor, a member of the city council.

You understand this. You understand that the infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri, used to be a point of pride. It was something that brought people together, but that is not unique to your community or mine.

Infrastructure used to be a point of pride that united Americans across this great Nation. 152 years ago, the Transcontinental Railroad under, I might say, a Republican President--President Lincoln--helped us be able to develop the United States.

It tied the country together. It helped in terms of the opening up of the west, and the United States from that point, until the end of World War II, had the finest passenger rail system in the world--not there anymore.

As was referenced, under the leadership, signed into law by President Eisenhower, there was a bipartisan initiative, a Democratically- controlled Congress, a Republican President, who initiated the interstate highway system.

The United States, over the course of a quarter century, had the largest public works project in our history to that point. It was in every State in the Union. It created more economic value than it cost, and it was a point of pride to have the finest road system in the world.

Similarly, we have made great advancements in our history dealing with water and sewage systems.

The simple fact is, as was referenced by both my colleagues already this evening, the United States is falling behind. We are no longer rated number one in the world. The last survey I saw put us at 14th and falling.

We are investing the smallest amount of percentage of our economy as we have in 20 years--less than 2 percent--and far less than our competitors in China, in Europe, Japan, India.

The United States is in trouble. Unless and until we are able to get our act together to be able to protect, maintain, and enhance our infrastructure, we are not going to be able to meet the needs of the American people, and in fact, we are going to lose our competitive position around the world.

On top of this, we are in the midst of a funding crisis for our infrastructure, and this could not come at a worse time.

As both my colleagues indicated, investing in infrastructure is one of the best ways to create family-wage jobs. The estimates are between 25,000 and over 30,000 jobs for each billion dollars that is invested.

The most recent report I saw from Standard & Poor's said, for $1.3 billion, it is 29,000 jobs.

That investment would actually lower the deficit $200 million, and it would increase overall economic activity in the United States a third more than the $1.3 billion invested. The $1.3 billion gives you, overall, $2 billion rippling through the economy.

While we are slowly falling apart, while we are struggling with a jobless recovery, and how we could desperately use these family-wage jobs that will be created in every State in the Union, there is also ongoing damage to individuals. They don't have to be on a bridge that collapsed.

AAA tells us--and that is the preeminent organization nationally that represents motorists--they have followed this very closely. Their estimate is that the average motorist incurs $323 a year of damage to their cars because of inadequately maintained roads, so it is not just that they are not getting the service.

It is not just that they are trapped in congestion. It is actually costing them money every month, in terms of damage to what, for most Americans, is their second or third most valuable asset.

Last Congress gave up on a 6-year reauthorization. They just couldn't do it. They walked around it, but they couldn't deal with the funding question, so they settled for a short-term, 27-month extension that expires in 98 days. September 30, it is over, but the money in the transportation trust fund will not last nearly that long.

My colleague mentioned that, next month or so, we are going to drop below the trust fund balance that the Department of Transportation tells us is necessary to be able to manage the hundreds and hundreds of contracts all across the country that are part of the unique Federal- State-local partnership.

They can't take the trust fund down to zero, so they are going to start cutting back this summer, and because our partners around the country in State and local government understand what is happening, they are starting to cut back now.

More than eight States are already signaling what they are going to have to forego this summer, so we have got a summer slowdown, and it is only going to get worse, and Congress, in the meantime, spins its wheels.

It is hard to be meaningful in efforts to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, which is on the verge of expiring, if you don't even know what your resources are.

We have no idea what the resources are that are available to the House Transportation Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works because we haven't established how we are going to pay for it.

Now, we have heard gimmicks from our Republican friends. You know, last Congress, their solution was to take away all the guaranteed funding for transit and for transportation enhancements.

The enhancements, by the way, are the most popular program that the Department of Transportation administers. They were going to take away that guaranteed funding.

I find that somewhat ironic because that guaranteed funding came from Ronald Reagan. In the Reagan administration, they decided that they were going to have 20 percent in the transit account and 80 percent in the highway account, so you wouldn't have uncertainty. You wouldn't have people battling every year, year in and year out, about going forward on major projects.

Most important, if you are going to deal with major transit and highway projects, you need certainty; and President Reagan and his administration, in their wisdom, promoted a program that established the highway trust fund and had a separate account for transit.

Well, last Congress, the gimmick was: we will just strip away all that guaranteed funding, and we will have some theoretical money to keep the transportation program afloat.

It blew up in their face. They were able to get it through the Ways and Means Committee on a party line vote, by the way, never having a hearing on it, just moved to a work session, and it was roundly attacked.

Groups, truckers, business, environmental groups, local governments, transit, the entire infrastructure community rose up in rebellion against this goofy idea that was not going to deal with the fully funding needs, and it was going to pit people against one another.

The outrage was so strong that our Republican friends couldn't even bring their own bill to the floor, and it collapsed, and we were ending up with this 27-month gimmick.

It was funded by simply draining every dollar out of the highway trust fund, and in so doing, they thought they could maybe last for 27 months. Well, as we are finding out, they can't.

The next gimmick that we are hearing about--and I love this one--it is fascinating. Our Republican friends have required the post office, unlike any other agency--or near as I can tell, any business--to prefund the health insurance of future employees, so they are charging the post office an extra $5 billion a year for employees that aren't even on the payroll, let alone their retirement in the future.

So the post office has some challenges in terms of different patterns, in terms of this prefunding obligation, shifting use of the post office, and the refusal of some in Congress to allow the post office to operate like a business, so it has got a funding crisis.

The Republican alternative is to take a post office that has a funding crisis--it is a real one, it was artificially created, but it is a real crisis--and to eliminate Saturday mail delivery for 10 years and take these theoretical savings by eliminating Saturday home service and use these theoretical savings from an agency that they claim is going bankrupt, and they are actually trying to make go bankrupt, and use it

for another bankrupt institution--that is the highway trust fund.

Ludicrous--10 years' savings of eliminating home delivery, which are theoretical, no sense at all that they are going to materialize, but for 10 years--and it would just produce enough money to get us into the next fiscal year, and leave the post office worse off than it is now.

Luckily, I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have realized that is not a solution, and I think they have dropped that, realizing it is not going to go anywhere.

There are actual proposals that would meet this challenge. I have got legislation that has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by both the truckers and AAA, the contractors, engineers, local government, transit, to just--straight up--deal with the fact that we haven't raised the gas tax for 21 years--pretty straightforward. It works.

My colleague, Peter DeFazio from Oregon, a senior member on the Transportation Committee, has proposed looking at a barrel tax for oil and makes a strong case that this would have significant advantages and would allow us to go forward.

You know, I don't care what solution we come up with. There are a number of good ideas. Last week, Senator Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Corker of Tennessee came up with a proposal in the Senate that they thought would provide those resources.

What is interesting is that the House has been AWOL on this. We have not had a single hearing in Ways and Means this year, last year, the year before that, or the year before that. It has been 42 months since the Republicans took over. We haven't had a single hearing on transportation finance. I find that shocking. I find it embarrassing as a member of the committee and as a Member of the House of Representatives. As an American, I find it shameful that we are not doing our part.

Luckily, the other body is moving. My friend and colleague, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is moving ahead with some alternatives that would help keep the trust fund afloat so that we can avoid the summer shutdown and we don't have to stop the programs and put these people out of work. It will give us breathing room so that the people in the House can step up and do our job.

Mr. Speaker, every single Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee requested the Republican leadership--months ago--to at least give us a hearing. You don't have to buy into any solution, but let's come together, look at the problem, and hear solutions from the Americans who are dealing with it. Let's hear from the Governors. Let's hear from the transit agencies, from the State transportation commissions, highway departments. Let's hear from the men and women who work in the maintenance and construction of our infrastructure--the bridges, the roads, the transit. Let's hear from the engineers, the truckers, the representatives of the automobiles. They have got some strong opinions. They have potential solutions. They have done research that the committee should hear about, that every Member of Congress should hear about.

Sadly, as the clock winds down, as we look at the summer shutdown and the pending bankruptcy of the highway trust fund, the House is frozen in place. Time is slipping away. We have just a few dozen legislative days before the House is scheduled to adjourn for the election, and we have not one thing on the agenda to deal with this.

I hope that my Republican colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee will join us in at least having a hearing, listening to alternatives, working together to analyze the pros and cons of the various approaches going forward. I hope that every Republican and every Democrat makes a commitment that we are not going to adjourn for the year until we provide the American people, the businesses and communities that depend on it, a robust, well-funded, stable highway transportation trust fund with dedicated funding. That was the key to President Eisenhower and the success of the interstate freeway system. That has helped us with aviation. It has made a difference in terms of transit.

The American people deserve no less than us our doing our job--robust funding, stable funding, dedicated funding that will allow American communities to have the partnership of the Federal Government that they need for the infrastructure they deserve. I strongly urge my colleagues to reflect on this, and I hope each American makes clear their desires and their expectations about how Congress meets this responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress come to the floor to take the opportunity to urge that we deal with the great issues of the day--the failure of the House of Representatives to deal with climate challenge and global warming; to reduce senseless gun violence; and the crying need to rebuild and renew America and pay for the rebuilding-- but there are also a range of other issues that don't, on the surface, appear to be quite that important, but play a critical part in the bigger picture.

Today, I would like to address just one small part of the bigger picture because this is National Pollinator Week, where we recognize the importance of honeybees and over 250,000 other species that pollinate our food and which create $20 billion to $30 billion in agricultural production in the United States every year. Honeybees alone are responsible for pollinating one in every three bites of food we eat. Nearly 100 varieties of fruits depend on honeybee pollination.

While significant media attention has been devoted in recent years to the decline of honeybees, there is evidence of wild pollinator declines. Native bees are especially important to a number of iconic northwest agricultural products--such as cherries, apples, berries, as well as seed crops like alfalfa, canola, and vegetable seed.

I am proud that, in my community, we are home to the internationally- renowned Xerces Society, a nonprofit in the forefront of pollinator protection and habitat conservation, which harnesses the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs worldwide.

We saw in our community that businesses were stepping up to educate citizens and give pollinators a home. Last year, the rooftops of two local New Seasons Market grocery stores became home to several honeybee colonies--over 50,000 small pollinators--as part of the store's Bee Part of the Solution campaign.

Last summer, the Overlook neighborhood in my district started a project to become Portland's first pesticide-free neighborhood. Hundreds of households have committed to landscaping without the use of toxic chemicals to protect the habitat for not just bees, but wildlife as well.

These efforts are very important because the pollinator species and the livelihoods they support are suffering catastrophic loss, reaching an alarming 42 percent loss in recent studies.

American beekeepers have been consistently reporting severe colony losses of this magnitude for the last several years. The situation is serious and can have a devastating impact both on our food systems and the environment.

A certain class of insecticides, neonicotinoids, have been linked to damaging effects on honeybees and other pollinators, such as impairing their foraging and feeding behavior, disorientation, failure to find their way back to the beehives, weakened immunity, and interrupting the reproductive process.

A year ago, over 50,000 bumblebees died in Oregon as a direct result of an exposure to a neonicotinoid lawfully applied to trees for cosmetic purposes--the largest bumblebee kill on record.

Citing the mounting threats from these pesticides that honeybees and other pollinators now face and the importance and the value of the pollination process, last year Congressman Conyers and I introduced H.R. 2692, Saving America's Pollinators Act. The bill would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately suspend the use of the most bee-toxic neonicotinoids and review the impact

they have on pollinators and on the entire food chain and make a new determination about their proper application and safe use.

I hope that during Pollinator Week my colleagues will consider joining the 65 bipartisan cosponsors in this effort. While lots of major issues tie Congress into partisan knots, being able to protect the pollination process and its impact on the environment is a small step to protect the environment and is one that can actually bring us together in a low-cost, high-impact way.

I urge my colleagues to consider joining me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, America faces many challenges at home and abroad. We are watching deterioration in the Middle East. We are watching the problems dealing with climate change and global warming. Many of the problems seem beyond our control.

They are hard and complex. Some are political fodder, where the two parties are in a pitched battle and one denies fundamental science. This is what concerns our constituents: Why can't we get along and get something done?

Well, there are many issues that are not so hard, not so complex, not so controversial. One of the areas that has historically been a subject of people coming together in this Chamber and getting something done deals with our infrastructure.

America, sadly, is falling apart. Our infrastructure used to be the finest in the world, from rail passenger transportation, highways, sewer, and water. Now, it is slowly, steadily failing and has been rated 14th in the latest global rankings from the experts that analyze infrastructure, and it is falling further.

Our investment, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, is less than 2 percent--1.7 percent, the lowest it has been in 20 years. It is costing American families now.

Mr. Speaker, AAA estimates that the average car owner loses almost $1 a day from damage to their cars from inadequate roads. The American Society for Civil Engineers has projected that if we don't undertake the necessary repairs between now and 2020, that cost per family is going to be over a $3,000-per-year impact on each and every American family.

At the same time, it is understood that investment in infrastructure pays huge returns. For a $1.3 billion investment in road and sewer and transit, we create almost 30,000 jobs. The S&P latest report indicated that a $1.3 billion investment will produce $2 billion in economic benefit that spreads throughout the economy, and it will reduce the American budget deficit $200 million.

This is also an area where actually the public is ahead of us. Politicians here on Capitol Hill have not addressed long-term road funding for 21 years. That was the last time the gas tax was increased; yet the American public understands and supports--according to a AAA poll from last week, two-thirds of Americans support user fees to support our infrastructure.

Sixty-six percent say that a user fee is the right approach and should be utilized. Fifty-two percent say they would be willing to pay more.

It is time for Congress to stop this dancing around on the issue of adequately funding American infrastructure. We have a transportation bill that is expiring September 30.

We couldn't do a full-fledged reauthorization last time; we could only extend it for 27 months because Congress wouldn't face the funding challenge, and even that inadequate money is going to run out before September 30.

The Federal Department of Transportation is going to have to start withholding payments later this summer, which means State and local governments are having to begin to cut back now. So instead of an investment that would grow the economy and improve the quality of life in our communities, we are seeing further deterioration.

Luckily, there is starting to be some movement here. If Congress will move with a small amount of money to keep the system afloat through after the election, avoid the summer shutdown, hopefully, we can come together after all of the Tea Party primaries are over and the elections are done.

When we are dealing with important cleanup legislation in the lameduck session, this should be at the top of the list. America wants it. America needs it.

It will improve our economy. It will strengthen job opportunities for people from coast to coast, and it will make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This is a simple amendment that would cut $3.4 million for a new nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile and redirect the funding towards the cleanup and removal of unexploded ordnance that litters most congressional districts in every State of the Union.

It would save the taxpayers from footing the bill for a program whose rationale remains ill-defined.

First, the United States currently has a robust arsenal of air- launched cruise missiles, and with the life extension program, they are expected to be in service well past 2030.

These existing cruise missiles are also compatible with the Air Force's greatest procurement priority, the long-range strike bomber.

Now the Pentagon has not yet made a final decision on how or when it will replace its existing nuclear air-launched cruise missile, so it seems ill-advised to spend money before we know what our long-term plans are.

We no longer need a bomber with standoff nuclear weapons like the ALCM. The new Air Force bomber that will be designed to penetrate air defenses, it needs bombs that can be dropped, not a new cruise missile.

The procurement of the new cruise missile will also have a destabilizing effect in our efforts to control nuclear proliferation. A mass deployment of cruise missiles probably would trigger, potentially could trigger a new arms race that we have already agreed to begin to end.

Currently, only the United States, France, and Russia have such weapons. But are we going to be more secure if this sets off an effort for other countries to develop them?

Are we going to be more secure if China has them, if Pakistan develops them? I think certainly not.

Now, maybe this amendment looks modest, only directing $3.4 million. But allowing this seed money to go forward could potentially mean billions down the road if we don't have a reason, a rationale, a commitment to do it.

The new ALCM does not yet have an official pricetag, but the research we have done suggests it is in the range of 20 to $30 billion. And a rebuilt nuclear warhead to go on it would cost another $12 billion, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

So a potential of over $40 billion, and based on our past experience with weapons developments and the nuclear area, it is very likely that that is going to increase over time.

Remember, we recently had a debate on the floor of the House that highlighted that the costs of the current nuclear program were understated by the Pentagon by $150 billion.

This program, whose true utility remains a mystery, even to those requesting money for it, will directly compete with other priorities.

Let me repeat that. This is not free money. If we launch this program, it is going to directly compete with other priorities. The Navy, as we all know--which the committee has been wrestling with--is looking for $100 billion to build 12 new nuclear-armed submarines.

The Air Force is coming up short looking for the $70 billion it needs to buy up to 100 new long-range bombers. A down payment on a cruise missile today that we don't need means cuts to other programs tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that, instead of launching us down this path of unnecessary spending and potentially huge outyear costs, that we, instead, spend this money on Formerly Used Defense Sites that have been contaminated by our activities over the better part of the last century in the United States. It is better use for the money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first let me point out that this is a minuscule sum. I have pointed out that we have the capacity with the current plans to be able to deal past 2030, so this is not an urgent effect. We have a chance to sort it out and see if it truly is a priority.

I respect the gentleman's point about--I think he is sincere in wanting to clear up these Formerly Used Defense Sites, but the amount in the budget is $50 million less than we had in fiscal year 2014 and is less than we enacted in fiscal year 2013.

At the current rate of funding, the Pentagon estimates that it will take 250 years to clean up the backlog of dealing with the military contamination and unexploded ordnance. That is unacceptable.

In a defense budget of this magnitude, we can and should be doing more. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is not nearly adequate, and we certainly don't need to launch down this other path that may lead to dramatic unnecessary spending in the future.

I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, like many Americans, I was transfixed by the magnificent victory not just in game five of the NBA finals, but by every one of these amazing games, a superb effort against a very good Miami Heat team, dominated by a person widely acknowledged to be the best player in the NBA.

As a lifelong Portland Trail Blazers fan and one who remembers the excitement of being a long-suffering season ticketholder who had the joy of being in our coliseum when we won the NBA championship more years ago than I care to remember, I appreciate the dynamic that is involved with these five NBA championships over the last 17 years.

I confess, I have also become a fan of the Spurs, their organization, their coach--Greg Popovich--but also their approach to the way they do business. They have some important lessons for America.

I feel very strongly that we on Capitol Hill and, indeed, most Americans could learn a great deal by paying attention not just to the victories, but how the Spurs became the most successful sports franchise in any sport over the last 2 decades.

My son was privileged to play for Coach Popovich when he was head coach of the Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens, a Division III small basketball program. In fact, they had to put two colleges together, Pomona and Pitzer, to form one team. His values forged a small but excellent college athletic program that is very much in evidence in the Spurs today.

First, they look for talent wherever they find it around the globe. It meant players not just from the United States, but I think there are eight different countries represented on that roster.

There is a respect for each of them having a role as a team member, their commitment to the larger concept of winning for the greater good. Isn't it interesting that their postgame interviews are in six or seven different languages and that these players have been able to come together and meld into a unit?

The leadership of the coach is very much in evidence when you watch them in action. Coach Popovich is not a celebrity vying for the spotlight. Indeed, you could barely see him in the postgame victory television interviews. It was focused on the team.

Today, Americans are facing challenges that they sometimes feel are beyond our capacity. They are certainly beyond our capacity as individuals to deal with. We are facing a challenge that is similar to the rigors of a long, 82-game basketball season and a seemingly interminable playoff schedule.

Our challenges of reducing gun violence, of saving the planet from even greater carbon pollution and disruption from global warming, empowering our kids to protect them from the scourge of illegal drugs, rebuilding and renewing a country that is falling apart, these are challenges today that actually we know how to fix. They are all areas where progress is vital.

They seem to be intractable, but all could unite Americans to deal as a country on things that, individually, we could not make progress on. These all have characteristics in common with the success of Coach Popovich and the Spurs. These are long-term issues. They require careful thought. They require hard work and investment, and most of all, they require working together with an eye on our ultimate goals.

I would hope that, in the midst of the partisan rancor here in Washington, D.C., and the deep divisions among our citizens who yearn for simple answers to complex problems--which politicians are all too eager to provide--that we can think about the Spurs' success, a visionary and patient coach bringing people together to work with maximum effort, dealing with the fundamentals, and not quitting. That is what America needs today.

Congratulations to the world champion Spurs. Let's try your winning formula on America's problems.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 4: Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $3,400,000)''.

Page 31, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $3,400,000)''.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Ohio talk about his concern for small businesses and the economy. I am reflecting on the thousands of businesses that were represented here on Capitol Hill this week, calling on Congress to get its act together, dealing with transportation funding.

We are facing a crisis in transportation in this country. The majority, because they couldn't put together a transportation bill last year, drove the highway trust fund down to zero. They milked every single dime to be able to get a 27-month extension.

What has happened? Well, actually, what has happened is that it is not even going to last until October 1. All across the country, States are cutting back on funding contracts now because the Department of Transportation is going to run out of money late this summer.

These people were rallying on Capitol Hill, large business, small business, environment, unions, from all across America, saying: Congress, get your act together.

I will note, with some small amount of irony, that my friends on the Ways and Means Committee have approved over $600 billion of tax breaks added to the deficit that would have fully funded not one 6-year transportation bill, but two robust transportation bills.

Did you listen to those small businesses? Did you listen to the contractors? Did you listen to the equipment rental people, the asphalt, the gravel, the concrete? To those people, we have turned a deaf ear.

The Ways and Means Committee, in 42 months, has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. We had one misguided work session on a bill that had never had the benefit of a hearing that collapsed. They passed it out of committee, but they couldn't even bring it to the floor, so we got this 27-month extension.

We are facing, this summer, losing 700,000 construction jobs because Congress refuses to act. My friends on Ways and Means won't even have a hearing on transportation, will approve $600 billion worth of tax cuts; but we are not dealing with a crisis for your State, for my State, red States, blue States, union and nonunion, big business, small business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the building trades. Let's get a grip.

If you care about small business, if you care about the health and welfare of your community, if you care about the future of the economy, read the Standard & Poor's report that pointed out that the investments we make will pay for themselves many times over.

It is not just saving those 700,000 jobs. It is an opportunity to grow the economy in the future in something that doesn't have to be conservative, liberal, red State, blue State. It is an opportunity to bring America together to rebuild and renew our economy.

That is what we should be focusing on, rather than this sideshow today that is going to make long-term tax reform harder, add to the deficit, and not deal with the fundamental problems that our constituents were asking us to deal with this week.

There were thousands of them here rallying before the Congress. We turned a deaf ear. Is this really the best we could come up with?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend a few moments this afternoon reflecting on the recent order that is being promulgated by President Obama and the EPA dealing with the goals for carbon emission.

Now, even before the President's announcement of the carbon goals last week, the spin machine was in full battle mode. There was a full- throated expression of outrage for the apologists for pollution. Those who are profiting from what we are doing now and who are investing the least amount of change are making dire predictions that sound eerily familiar.

The reason they sound familiar is that we have, in fact, heard them before. There was similar gloom and doom that greeted the Federal Government during the first Bush administration that was, if you will forgive the phrase--hold onto your hats--a cap-and-trade program to deal with acid rain. There were claims that it was unworkable, that it would be expensive, that it would create far more problems than it would solve; frankly, we just couldn't afford to move ahead, that we should instead continue the same approach we had for years, the same approach that resulted in minimal progress and contributed to acid rain damage to our waterways, to our forests, and to the health of our people. But the Bush administration argued against the naysayers in that by setting a framework requiring limits to be met and giving flexibility to the States' utilities on how it would be achieved, we would make progress for relatively minor costs, and it would be worth it.

Almost 25 years later, the verdict is in. It has been a remarkable success. The program didn't require massive bureaucracy or a huge, unmanageable cost. We have, in fact, dramatically reduced acid rain. We have promoted investment in new technology. Our lakes and forests are healthier, and so are our people. The cleanup was achieved in the regular course of business, changing the incentives and the signals that were sent.

This success, with bipartisan support, may be one of the reasons that, as we moved into the new century, the

2000s, there was initially broad, bipartisan interest in reducing carbon pollution. In fact, the situation we faced in the United States then was much like the situation I encountered in meeting with British members of Parliament 6 years ago on their approach to climate change.

Now, they acknowledged that there were differences between the three parties in Parliament about the details of what they were planning, about the best approach going forward. Some favored a more command and control, and others were dealing with incentives or taxation or a combination, but they were engaged in a debate about the details of how to achieve the objective of reducing carbon emissions, not the wisdom of doing it, not challenging the climate science.

Maybe this was because Great Britain is an island nation that really couldn't afford to be indifferent to shifting weather patterns, rising sea levels, the impacts of storm, disaster, and crop patterns.

Maybe it was that the British parliamentary system made it harder for the leaders of government and the parties in opposition to insulate themselves from day-to-day debate, debate that is largely unknown here in this Chamber on an ongoing basis.

Maybe it was because the British Government itself had been involved in such sweeping research and planning. Remember, Sir Nicholas Stern had a seminal report on climate that was widely acknowledged and respected, that served as a prod for action.

During the 2000 election, President Bush, then-Governor Bush, said he would move to limit carbon pollution. During a period shortly thereafter, then-Governor Romney of Massachusetts was one of the leaders in the regional greenhouse gas initiative of the Northeast States that started the limited cap-and-trade program, that put a price on carbon, and used those monies to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been relatively successful, despite the massive recession and the Tea Party heat that caused Presidential candidate Romney to repudiate what he helped put in place, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie pulled back.

In 2008, the Presidential nominee for the Republicans was Senator John McCain, who had been involved, on a bipartisan basis, with legislation to restrict greenhouse gases. And at this point, Senator McCain was not a climate-denier; he was a believer that our government and our economy were not helpless in the face of threats from human impact on climate change and weather instability, let alone spreading doubt about the scientific consensus.

We are coming to the floor this afternoon debating, discussing impacts on climate, the need for modest steps proposed by the administration, restating some facts, and broadening the conversation.

I would like to turn, if I could, to my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Sarbanes, to add his voice. The Congressman has been deeply concerned with the environment, with climate, with energy, playing a key role on the Commerce Committee. I welcome him to this conversation.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman joining us and his observations, in particular, the thought that the sky is falling rhetoric is not necessarily born out.

I am reminded that 3 years ago one of the operators of perhaps the dirtiest coal-powered plant in the country, in Homer City, Pennsylvania, warned that there would be immediate and devastating consequences from the Obama administration's push to clean up pollution from coal.

It was facing the requirement to cut sulfur dioxide pollution by 80 percent in less than a year, and it sought to block the rule. They were unsuccessful. In fact, it was the recent regulation that the EPA's-- excuse me--the Supreme Court upholding the EPA's rule in this case was initiated by the Homer City generating station that precipitated all of this.

But today, the Homer City power plant is now a model. It hasn't been shut down. There haven't been devastating consequences for that community. It has been able to adopt new regulations, set them in place. It has dramatically reduced its emissions, and it is operating successfully.

The EPA estimates that about 30 percent of the coal-powered units in the United States are operating without scrubbers. Remember, our friend from Maryland talked about the immediate health benefits, not just environmental. The pollution control equipment is not only for sulfur dioxide but mercury.

It is inexcusable that there are plants still operating without these minimal protections.

Mr. Speaker, we are joined by one of my colleagues who is also from Maryland, Congressman John Delaney. One of the things I appreciate about the perspective that Mr. Delaney brings to Congress--being a relatively new Member, but having pursued a successful business career--is that he is often taking an approach from an economic perspective that deals with some of these elements.

One of the reasons I am pleased that the EPA is moving forward is that this is an economic solution that can have a huge difference, not just improving the environment, but new technologies and doing so in a cost-effective way.

So we are pleased to have Mr. Delaney here, and I yield to him for any comments that he may have about the situation.

Thank you, Congressman.

I must say, I appreciated your observations. I personally am intrigued with your State's Choice Act. I look forward to exploring that further with you. I am absolutely convinced that, in the course of the next decade, this country will be moving to a broader carbon tax.

It is a key to ultimately controlling emissions. It is a way to reform our tax system. It is a way to simplify the equation, and what you proposed, I think, is an intriguing way to accelerate that conversation. I look forward to continuing it with you.

Mr. Speaker, there have been certain concerns that have been raised in terms of some of the horror stories. People feel it is just too much hard work, too much risk with being able to move forward with reducing carbon emissions.

I must reflect on my own personal experience on this, and then I will turn to my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Moran. From his perspective, he has a great deal to offer on this, and I appreciate his environmental leadership.

Over 20 years ago, I was a member of the Portland City Council, and we were involved then with work to deal with carbon pollution. In fact, Portland became the first city in the United States to make a commitment to reduce its carbon emissions. Our plan was to reduce these emissions. We had committed to making a reduction of 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

It was fascinating to watch as we moved forward with aggressive work, with energy efficiency, with transportation, bicycles, light rail, streetcar, building design and planning, having a comprehensive effort to tie these pieces together, to change how we did business to meet the carbon objective.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that it is working. As of 2012, our greenhouse gas emissions are 11 percent below the 1990 levels, even though our population has grown 30 percent over that time. It means, on a per-person basis, it has been reduced by a third. Emissions from homes are down 13 percent and are down 16 percent in commercial, industrial, and multifamily sectors.

Now, Portland--anybody who has visited it in the last 20 years--is not impoverished. It is not a place that people are fleeing. Indeed, we are finding that the cohort of well-educated, young professionals--the 20-to 34-year-olds are actually increasing in the city of Portland, while the quality of life has been maintained.

During that same period of time, jobs are up 18 percent, and some of the best-paying jobs are in those areas that deal with innovation, with energy efficiency, with design, with transportation.

So this, from my experience in my hometown, having been involved with

it now for a quarter of a century, it is not only within our capacity, but doing it can actually improve the economy and the quality of life.

There is another critical area that we need to address, and that is why I am so pleased that Congressman Moran is here. He is a senior Member, the dean of the Virginia delegation--who, sadly, has decided that he may move on and retire after this Congress, after a long and distinguished career.

One of the areas in which Congressman Moran is a powerful and respected voice is in the area of national security, and I am pleased that he is with us here this afternoon and perhaps can have some observations about what this means to the future security of our country, not just in terms of the environment.

Of course.

Well, I appreciate very much your being here, Congressman Moran, and your voice makes me think that maybe you have been giving diction lessons to Gina McCarthy, but it is not so much how she talks but what she says.

I am talking about the distinctive way in which you communicate as well as the power of the words, both of the administrator and of you. I deeply appreciate your putting numbers around some of these threats. The notion that we have the largest naval base in the world, and

you are saying we had to invest almost one-quarter of a billion dollars because it has had the greatest increase in sea level on the entire eastern seaboard.

It was interesting. There was a recent article in The Washington Post about a church on the waterfront in Norfolk. And they are having to vacate because this rising sea level is making it--the pastor of the church was quoted as saying that people shouldn't have to consult a tide table to figure out whether or not they can go to service.

I deeply appreciate your focusing on this, the reference you make to the Defense Department needing to have the best information possible and the outrage that an amendment was approved to the defense authorization that would have, in effect, locked climate denial into that authorization.

I just had my first two grandchildren, and I would like some day for these two little boys to be able to see Miami and not have to be snorkeling.

Now, your reference to the defense amendment that was passed makes me think of what happened in North Carolina, where the legislature tried to mandate that the State agencies could not use the best science to make choices, the best information to protect the coastline.

Well, I deeply appreciate your joining us this afternoon. I appreciate your leadership and look forward to continuing with you this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, there are some who claim, well, we really don't need to move forward with this because maybe or maybe not the administration's plan will work as they say. Maybe it is affordable, maybe it will create those jobs, it will improve air quality, and reduce carbon emissions. But they say that it really doesn't matter what the United States does. It is ironic, because some of the same people who are denying climate science are then turning around and saying, but it won't matter what we do because the Indians and the Chinese are building a coal emissions plant every week or two, and so anything that the United States does will really be drowned out, will lose its effect because of other events.

Well, this argument is wrong on all counts. It is not as much as we need to do. I am absolutely convinced, as I stand here on the floor of the House today, I am absolutely convinced that over the course of the next 20 years we will not only implement the requirements of this carbon emission rule, but we will go beyond it. We will go beyond it, and we will find it is not only manageable, but it is the right thing to do.

Even though this modest step will have some short-term pain and some difficulty in changing current patterns of business and politics, it is something we can and should do. Being able to make this pivot to start changing how we do business is in and of itself significant because it is these first steps that are going to make it possible for us to take other, more important, longer-term steps that will be even more significant.

But it is also critical to demonstrate American leadership. Our failure to lead on reducing carbon emissions will encourage other countries that are poorer and are heavier carbon emitters on a per capita basis to just sit back and wait. Some of them will say, hey, you in the United States are the people who have created most of this problem. The United States has now been passed by China in terms of annual current carbon emissions. But in terms of total carbon in the atmosphere, the United States is the all-time leader and will be for some time.

On a per capita basis, we are still far and away number one. Americans can emit three times as much carbon per person as the Chinese and six times more carbon per person than the Indians. So the United States is the greatest historic carbon emitter, and we are still emitting far more carbon per person. If we don't step up, being rich, powerful, and more technologically advanced, how is it that we are going to expect poorer countries where people are struggling with existential challenges for food and sanitation, how do we expect them to ever follow suit if we are afraid to lead?

Well, I think this rule that is being promulgated is an expression that we are not afraid to lead. As I say, it is an important interim step, it sends an important signal, and it starts a broader conversation internationally.

I was in Copenhagen 4 years ago and watched as the United States shuttled back and forth, the President trying to get people aligned, and dealing with the European Union. But, frankly, we are never going to be able to have one, large multinational organization that is going to put all of these pieces together. It is going to require leadership. It is going to require leadership from the United States, showing the way that we are willing to do this, and then working with not just the Chinese and the Indians, but the Brazilians and the Indonesians. In this political and economic climate, it is wildly unrealistic to expect that the United States is going to assume the entire burden itself, but it is important for us to send the signal that we are moving in the right direction.

The United States, over the course of the next 50 years, is going to be challenged to deal with all that we need to do; plus, as my friend from Virginia mentioned, we are facing serious problems in terms of climate change that is already underway.

If we, in some way, could be able to drop global carbon emissions below the 400 parts per million that we are at now back to 350 parts per million, we are still going to watch the climate effects unfold. We are still going to watch Florida sink, with oceans rising and problems for its water supply.

We are going to watch large chunks of the Arctic ice sheet collapse. We are going to watch parts of Greenland disappear. Ocean levels are going to continue to rise. This means that the United States is in a race to be able to deal with things to help people adapt with climate change and, for heaven's sake, not to give up because it is going to be a problem. We don't want it to accelerate. We don't want to make it worse.

If we are going to be able to deal with the challenges 50 years from now, it is what we do in the next 5 years in communities all across America that is going to make a difference.

Acting with cleaner technology, cleaner energy, and greater efficiency will save American families money over the next 20 years, compared to the current wasteful patterns. It is an opportunity for us to realign our economy for the economy of the future. It is an opportunity for us to be able to minimize the consequences of climate change.

Frankly, every single use of energy has some negative consequences-- every one, but being able to use that energy for efficiently, more effectively, and do it sooner minimizes those negative consequences while we harness the economic power to change the economy.

I want to conclude with just one observation about the way that the administration has proceeded. They have signaled the approach that they are taking going forward. They have taken goals and adjusted those carbon goals based on where States are now, what their energy mix is, and what they can do in a reasonable way in the years ahead.

They have taken those goals and given great flexibility to the individual States. This is not a one-size-fits-all

solution. To the contrary, giving them realistic goals and giving them flexibility on how they are going to achieve it is a terrific way to harness market-based solutions and the ingenuity of the individual States.

The administration, I have heard from a number of people in the industry, has reached out, talking to people with electric utilities, gas, and working in terms of large industrial users. Having those conversations with States, red State and blue, regardless of their energy mix, they have made it clear that they are encouraging people to take advantage of the flexibility that has been given to them.

I think this is an ideal model for going forward, not denying the problem, not trying to solve it all overnight, not trying to have one size fits all, but to deal with a minimal standard going forward that sets the base, giving people a range of options to meet it, and inviting their ingenuity and their activity.

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more important that this Congress should be addressing. Sadly, you know we have not done much to deal with it on the floor of the House, but the administration is at least stepping forward to not deny climate change, but to be able to give people choices to meet our objectives.

I commend the administration for the steps they have taken, and I hope that all Members will take the time to familiarize themselves with it and what their States can and should do to be able to meet that objective for America to exercise leadership at home and abroad--meet these minimal objectives and to exceed them in the years ahead.

As we did with acid rain, we can do with carbon emission. I urge my colleagues to focus on how we can do this, so we can make it a great success story to preserve the future of our children and grandchildren. I appreciate the opportunity to share this discussion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 74th school shooting incident since the horrific day at Sandy Hook in December 2012 where 26 people, including 20 children, were slaughtered. Only this time, it was my district.

Reynolds High School, the second-largest in the State of Oregon, was the scene of the tragic murder of 14-year-old Emilio Hoffman, a junior high school varsity soccer player and volunteer soccer coach. He was gunned down; a teacher was wounded, and the shooter, apparently an ex- student, dead.

I was struck by, just a few days earlier, when The Onion, the satirical newspaper, had their response to this recent spate of shootings that has shaken us all.

The Onion headline read:

``No Way To Prevent This,'' Says Only Nation Where This

Regularly Happens.

The article read:

In the days following a violent rampage in southern

California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals,

including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others,

citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass

killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded that there was

no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. ``This was

a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen

and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them,'' said North

Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed

by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation

where over half the world's deadliest mass shootings have

occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times

more likely to die of gun violence than those of other

developed countries. ``It is a shame, but what can we do?

There really isn't anything that was going to keep this guy

from snapping and killing a lot of people if that is what he

really wanted.'' At press time, residents of the only

economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two

mass shootings have occurred every month for the past 5 years

were referring themselves and their situation as

``hopeless.''

Well, the fact is we can do something about gun violence. It is a public health crisis, and with any other disease or health product that produced such widespread death and destruction, we would mobilize. First, we need to take some simple, commonsense steps like universal background gun checks. We have them in my State of Oregon. Obviously, it doesn't keep every senseless act of gun violence from happening, but it is often proven effective to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and criminal elements.

Universal background checks are supported by an overwhelming number of Americans--over 90 percent by some estimates--and a strong majority, over two-thirds, of gun owners want to make sure there are no loopholes in the background check laws.

Recent events have also demonstrated what you will find out by visiting any jail, emergency room, or simply walking the streets of our communities: too many Americans are facing a mental health crisis. I am looking forward to working with Representative Tim Murphy on his H.R. 3717, Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.

We have been discussing ways to advance some of the provisions in this

Congress. Recently, my friend and colleague from Tucson, Congressman Ron Barber, himself a victim of gun violence which occurred during the tragic murders in Tucson--which included the serious wounding of our former colleague, Gabby Giffords--has also introduced legislation.

I am looking forward to being able to work with both Congressman Murphy and Congressman Barber, so that this Congress produces legislation to strengthen the opportunities to help people who are mentally ill.

We ought not to pretend that there is nothing we can do about these situations. Look at what happened with automobile safety. It has dramatically improved within a generation, once we stopped accepting the carnage on our roadways.

Auto deaths have been cut in half, serious injuries reduced, not with any single magic solution, but by patient, hard work involving step-by- step efforts to improve design and construction of automobiles, the education of drivers, and the enforcement of our laws.

Education, engineering, and enforcement can likewise make a big difference in reducing the epidemic of gun violence in America, and we certainly can do a better job of helping individuals and families in mental health crisis.

Let's not make a parody in The Onion be the reality of this Congress. Let's act. Tens of thousands of victims, past and future, including young Emilio Hoffman, demand our best efforts.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. Royce's amendment. I want to work with him on an offset that I think might be a little more desirable.

But the notion here somehow that we are going to undercut the reforms that were achieved in the farm bill that require food, on average, to take 74 days longer, when you use U.S.-sourced commodities, when it is going to be, on average, 25 percent more expensive, and to talk about our ``foreign competitors,'' when we are talking about being able to purchase locally from people who are on the edge of impoverishment, rather than flooding American commodities that are more expensive late in the game and undercutting local production, I think is a sad step forward.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge support of this as we work for a better offset.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the recent news account of a horrific murder and rape of two young girls in India shocked our consciousness, but one of the items that was interesting is that few of the news accounts actually detailed what put those young women at risk.

Julie McCarthy of NPR had a story which highlighted one of the greatest human global health challenges that created this situation. They were indeed attacked, raped, and hung from a tree after they were caught in a field.

These two young women didn't have access to a toilet, and like so many women around the world, but particularly in India, they went out in the fields at night to relieve themselves, and they went in a pair to minimize the likelihood that they would be isolated.

This is offensive on so many levels. It is emblematic of violence against women, the vicious attitudes by people towards lower castes, and the complicated dynamic of castes in rural India.

It is also testimony to the need to be able to have these young women--and others around the globe--have access to adequate sanitation facilities, so they don't have to sneak out at night or early in the morning, cloaked in darkness to disguise their embarrassment, to use a nearby field as their restroom.

One-half of India's population uses open fields for defecation. Fewer than half of Indian households have a toilet. The women and girls perform a ritual to deal with this most basic bodily function, often in fear and trepidation.

This is one more piece of evidence as to why the American effort to increase our help for access to basic sanitation and safe drinking water is a moral imperative, as well as being critical for global health, security, education, and stable economic development.

Globally, 2.5 billion men, women, and children do not have access to adequate sanitation. This means that there are more people on Earth with a cell phone than with a toilet. Countries where open defecation is more prevalent also have the highest numbers of deaths for children under five, high levels of undernutrition and poverty, and huge disparities between rich and poor.

The lack of adequate sanitation is a huge drag on economies at a national level. The total global economic losses associated with inadequate water supply and sanitation are estimated to be $260 billion annually.

According to the World Bank for India alone, inadequate sanitation costs the country the equivalent of 6.4 percent of their gross domestic product, over $50 billion a year.

Not only do women have to plan their day around performing this most basic bodily function, they are also most likely to be the family members tasked with collecting drinking water--often dirty and polluted--for their families.

In fact, in just one day, it is estimated that more than 152 million hours of women and girls' time is consumed for another most basic of human need--collecting water, often from distant, polluted sources. This is time not spent working on income-generating jobs, caring for family members, or securing an education. The average distance for many of these women and girls is 10 miles a day.

Like a woman's search for a safe place to relieve herself, the search for drinking water, particularly when they must walk alone before or after daylight hours, leaves her vulnerable to rape and other violent attacks.

The most acutely impacted, however, are children. Over 1,400 children die every day from diarrhea caused from dirty water and poor sanitation. The lack of access to safe drinking water means a child dies needlessly every minute.

These are heartbreaking stories and jarring facts, but there are solutions. That is why I am hopeful we will be able to work with our friends on the House Foreign Affairs Committee to move the bipartisan bill that I am working with Judge Poe, Water for the World Act, H.R. 2901, to make American efforts more effective to deal with preventing the needless loss of a child's life every minute and the threat to young women and girls.

If we needed more evidence, consider the lynching of these two teenage rape victims in India. How could we not do all we can?

Mr. Chairman, Reynolds High School in Troutdale, Oregon, is a terrific institution in my district. I was there recently, and the kids gave me a wooden bowtie with a bicycle on it.

In a scene that is achingly familiar, this morning at Reynolds, a shooting occurred. A student was killed. The shooter died. A teacher was wounded.

The school and law enforcement recently completed drills to deal with these sad circumstances. Luckily, it went off without a hitch, and there were no further injuries. It went as well as could be expected under the circumstances, with a massive regional response from law enforcement on the scene.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the House observe a moment of silence in support for the victims, their families, and the community.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section: