Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I must join with my colleagues Mr. Price and Mr. Quigley. The reference here to the TIGER grant program is really almost incomprehensible in terms of what one would think Congress and even our friends in the Republican majority should be supporting. These are amongst the most popular programs that we have had in transportation, and the goal of the TIGER program was to maximize the impact. It required local communities

to come together, often across jurisdictional boundaries, to figure out how to leverage the most impact from this program.

Mr. Price referenced the heritage trail in Indianapolis. I have heard the mayor of Indianapolis give a spirited explanation of what difference that has made in the revitalization of that community. It is leveraging over $60 million to be able to improve the livability of Indianapolis. I was in Philadelphia, watching the program there, where the entire region came together for a $23 million program for bike and pedestrian, which would not be possible under the restrictions that the Republicans have inexplicably designed. Mr. Latham has a couple of TIGER grants in his district that would not be possible under this language. In Houston, a $200 million investment in bike and pedestrian trails has leveraged another $50 million from the private sector and is part of their effort to revitalize the downtown.

It is a formula that is used across the country--being able to give people more choices--but instead, the committee has decided that they know better than the mayor of Indianapolis, that they know better than local communities about what they need to be able to make a difference.

The irony is that the resources that are used for bike and pedestrian programs actually create more jobs than simply road construction. Talk to people around the country, as I have, about the ability to invest in making their children safer for cycling and pedestrian. It is not incidental. It is not something that should be just simply brushed aside.

Mr. Chairman, this is part of what we should be doing. I have got two of these projects in my district that have leveraged private investment, that are wildly supported by the public. It is why we are seeing that there are thousands of requests for only a couple of hundred slots. To dramatically reduce the spending and restrict what the local communities can use it for, I think, is misguided. It is a step in the wrong direction, and it is not where America is going. It is not what we are seeing in communities--large and small, red States and blue States. What they want is to be able to revitalize their communities, to keep young, talented professionals there, to give people more choices, to cut down on pollution, and to be able to maximize transportation investment.

I hope that this misguided language does not survive the legislative process. It would be a tragic mistake, and it is one that is actually going to end up undercutting some of the most progressive and energetic efforts we are seeing in communities, large and small. I respectfully urge my colleagues to think again--eliminate the restrictions, and look at where we are going to be able to maximize the impact. Where we are watching people in this Congress not willing to provide adequate resources for a transportation bill, we should be maximizing elements like the TIGER grants because we are going to need them more than ever.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleagues to honor Carol Urner, a community leader in Portland, Oregon who has worked for decades to promote peace, social justice, and global safety through nuclear disarmament.

Carol first voiced concerns about nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s and imagine her surprise when she found hundreds of other women who shared her passion that something must be done.

She co-founded Women for Peace, based in Portland, OR, which served as a model for grassroots groups around the country, each working to promote the first nuclear test ban treaty.

In 1963, Carol traveled to Japan and took one thousand white roses that she exchanged for one thousand peace cranes to honor the nuclear disarmament work of Women Strike for Peace.

Throughout her life, Carol survived many tragedies. Yet she always persevered and overcame difficult circumstances to continue her work.

For 35 years, Carol lived abroad with her husband and raised two children. In the midst of this, she sought to improve human rights for some of the world's poorest citizens.

Today she is still an active leader with the Portland Chapter of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.

It is a great honor to recognize Carol. She remains a dedicated leader and mentor in our community and her vision for a safer world is one we will continue to aspire towards.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Rural Wind Energy Development Act,'' to provide an investment tax credit to ranchers, farmers, and small businesses to offset the up-front costs of owning a distributed wind turbine. I am pleased to again be working with my friend Congressman Cole of Oklahoma in offering this modest expansion of current law that will keep small business energy jobs growing across the United States.

Distributed wind systems are electric generators that produce up to 20 megawatts of clean and renewable energy for homes, farms, and small businesses. With these turbines, individuals can generate their own power, often independent from the electric grid. These wind turbines allow farmers, ranchers, and other consumers to cut their energy bills and, at times, sell power back into the grid. They also allow thousands of businesses--from ``mom and pop'' stores, to retailers, to ranches, and to breweries--to reduce their energy load, to help clean the environment, and to save money. All you need is pretty good wind and a little land.

At best there has been unsteady federal support for distributed wind systems and there has been no federal tax support until the past several years.

In many cases, this is not only American produced electricity, but American manufactured electricity as well. Approximately 90 percent of distributed wind turbines sold in the U.S. are made here, according to domestic manufacturing content.

My bill also supports locally owned, or ``community,'' wind power. The Department of Energy's national laboratories estimate that community wind generates a strong economic multiplier for local communities, helping rural areas rebound from challenging economic times.

The federal Production Tax Credit, PTC, applies mainly to large utility-scale wind projects, not to individuals who install their own wind systems for on-site power. The existing investment credit, which may be taken in lieu of the PTC, has worked very well. My legislation provides an additional option and bars taking a double-benefit from these tax supports. This additional tool will provide stability and certainty for the distributed wind market to unlock the necessary investment to grow our global leadership role in distributed wind power. It will also help farmers, consumers, and businesses afford pollution-free energy.

This legislation strikes the existing 100 kilowatt nameplate limitation for small wind systems, and expands the maximum wind turbine size to 20 megawatts, in line with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission definition of distributed wind power. Other agencies depend on this figure as a cut off between smaller-scale or ``community'' wind power and larger wind farms. There is no similar cap for solar, and, as the community wind industry grows and produces jobs, so should the opportunity for projects that still meet the threshold for distributed wind.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important policy to promote wind power, which produces no harmful greenhouse gas emissions, involves no environmentally damaging natural resource extraction, and is made right here in America.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing The Medicare Transitional Care Act, which will address continuity of care problems. This legislation will provide high-risk Medicare beneficiaries access to evidence based transitional care services that are provided by an eligible transitional care entity,

such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and community based- organizations. The bill will also provide incentives for the use of technology and other tools to improve care transitions.

Transitions from hospital to home can be complicated and risky, especially for individuals with multiple chronic illnesses. Patients frequently report difficulty remembering clinical instructions, confusion over correct use of medications, and uncertainty over their prognosis. In cases where multiple providers are involved, patients often get conflicting instructions from different providers.

Researchers with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have estimated that inadequate care coordination, including inadequate management of care transitions, was responsible for $25 to $45 billion in wasteful spending in 2011 through avoidable complications and unnecessary hospital readmissions.

In its June 2012 Report, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) highlighted the need for an explicit payment for transitional care services, given the documented evidence that effective and coordinated care transitions improve health outcomes, reduce readmission rates, and generate significant savings to the U.S. health care system. The Congressional Budget Office has echoed these findings. In a report documenting lessons from Medicare's demonstration projects, the CBO emphasized that ``programs that smoothed transitions (for example, by providing additional education and support to patients moving from a hospital to a nursing facility or between a primary care provider and a specialist) tended to have fewer hospital admissions.''

It is our hope that stakeholders involved in the care delivery system will carefully evaluate this legislation and provide comments or suggested improvements to me and the other sponsors. We are interested in ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to the different circumstances and settings in which these transitions occur.

Providing a transitional care benefit within Medicare will help coordinate care, develop a care plan for patients and their caregivers, identify potential health risks, and prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. I thank my cosponsors and look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy as I appreciate her leadership on this.

The matter is that 22 States have moved to reduce the barriers, 17 States now, including our home State of Oregon, have removed barriers to production. But there is uncertainty. As a matter of fact, I think my friend from Kentucky may talk about a problem they had in the State of Kentucky now.

We need to approve this amendment to get the Federal Government out of the way of a revolution that is taking place at the State level. States across the country understand that this is an important commodity, it is part of our heritage, and it is part of our future. The DEA has more important things to do than interfere with legal activities at the State level.

We need to remove the cloud of uncertainty and approve this amendment, and I respectfully request that people approve it.

Mr. Chair, I am listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle in opposition here and the notion about camel's nose, this train has already left the station. Eighteen years ago, the State of California voters approved medical marijuana. We now have 22 States that are doing so.

My good friend from Georgia is right. I mean, there are a million Americans now with the legal right to medical marijuana as prescribed by a physician. The problem is that the Federal Government is getting in the way. The Federal Government makes it harder for doctors and researchers to be able to do what I think my friend from Louisiana wants than it is for parents to self-medicate with buying marijuana for a child with violent epilepsy.

This amendment is important to get the Federal Government out of the way. Let this process work going forward where we can have respect for states' rights and something that makes a huge difference to hundreds of thousands of people around the country now and more in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today's congressional business is to deal with the defense authorization legislation. This is a critical bill, a real opportunity to balance our needs for a strong defense and care for our men and women in uniform, with the hard budget realities and unsustainable trend lines that we are seeing across the budget categories.

But because we are ducking the hard tradeoffs in this Defense Authorization, tradeoffs that at least the administration--to its credit--and the Pentagon laid before Congress with their recommendations. We are going to have to resort to an amendment process on the floor to use these areas of opportunity to make longer-term savings and to use part of that money to address key priorities that are shortchanged.

Now, I have an amendment that would help support our Air National Guard. The Guard and Ready Reserves are a cost-effective way to provide support for our military establishments. They have proven their worth time and time again overseas, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, and here at home as they help us deal with natural disasters.

The Air National Guard also operates a fleet of 130 F-15 fighter jets in installations across America, but more than half these planes rely on an outmoded, limited radar technology from the 1970s. That means that for many of our pilots, their radar is older than they are. It went out of production in 1986. It limits their capacity, and it breaks down more frequently. It is less reliable. That is why my amendment will actually save money over the next 10 years.

Soon we will be voting on whether or not we will do the right thing to support this vital work of the Air National Guard. Now, during the debate last night, the opponents couldn't argue against the wisdom of making the Air Guard more effective by upgrading this outmoded radar technology that is unreliable and limits their capacity. In fact, they admitted that the little bit that the budget will do to upgrade some of them actually was helpful. They had no good reason to continue to shortchange the Guard.

Instead, during the debate, they tried to make this modest proposal into a larger debate about the one-half to two-thirds of $1 trillion we will be spending over the next 10 years for our whole nuclear weapons program. Now, that is a debate I will welcome on the floor of the House.

In fact, I have legislation that would save $100 billion over the next 10 years and would start us on a much different path to rein in the bloated, expensive, unnecessary, and redundant nuclear deterrent that is many times more than we can afford or that we need. How many times do we have to completely destroy a country from how many different platforms in order to meet our objective of deterrence? We are spending more in inflation-adjusted terms than we spent at the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Not only is the program more than we need, but the costs are out of control.

I am pleased that later today we will debate an amendment that the Rules Committee made in order to make last year's Congressional Budget Office report on the reliability of the weapons costs an annual event. That is important because the first report that was issued in December showed that there is a $150 billion underestimation from the administration's current program projections, and that is before the committee added more money and changed the timelines.

By all means, let's have that debate on the floor of the House, on how many of these weapons we need. We have never used these weapons in 69 years and are too expensive and actually, in and of themselves, are dangerous. Let's have the debate sooner rather than later so that we can set our priorities. In the meantime, let's not confuse the tiny reallocation under my amendment with a larger question that is 1,000 times greater.

What it does show is that the money is there to help the Air Guard do their job right. It would be a shame if we let them down and did not approve the Blumenauer amendment.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, we all agree that transparency and nonpartisan oversight strengthens our democracy and promotes greater efficiency and effectiveness in government, especially in monitoring government spending. This amendment provides every Member with an opportunity to promote this efficiency and effectiveness through increased transparency. The amendment would simply require the Congressional Budget Office to update, each year, their report on the projected costs of the United States' nuclear forces over the 10-year budget window.

This report initially was required in the last reauthorization as a one-time look at U.S. spending on our nuclear forces. It was released last December and has since proven to be incredibly valuable for Members, staff, and civil society organizations. I am sure it was referenced by many people on the committee as this bill before us was crafted.

The CBO's report provided an unbiased and more realistic forecast of spending. It found that the administration's own estimates for the costs of our nuclear weapons over the next decade were understated by nearly $150 billion. With tight budgets, we can't afford to rely on partial or inaccurate information, let alone such a significant disparity.

If the United States is likely committing--at some level--to refurbishing the nuclear triad, we all deserve to know the long-term costs to make the strategic, effective decisions and to appreciate any trade-offs that might be required.

Despite everyone's best intentions, these projects have a history of egregious cost overruns. No one is better suited to help Congress monitor these projected costs as they change and fluctuate than the Congressional Budget Office. The amendment provides Congress with the information that we need to make the difficult decisions.

We are scheduled to spend between one-half and two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years for our nuclear forces and related programs. This spending, adjusted for inflation, is higher than we spent at the height of the cold war.

But we can and should debate the merits of that spending. There should be no objection from anyone about

knowing how much the projects will cost. It will be valuable if you want to increase the programs. It will be valuable if you want to decrease them. It will be valuable if you just want to fund the existing program.

This amendment focuses on increased transparency and oversight. I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am listening to my good friend from Alabama, and I don't know if he has actually read my amendment.

I, too, am happy to have a debate on the level of our nuclear spending. That is not what this amendment says. The amendment says that we ought to have a report every year from the CBO that shows what the accurate projections are going to be for the next 10 years.

The gentleman didn't dispute what I said, that the report that the committee requested last year showed that it is underestimated by $150 billion.

Why don't you want the American people to know good information every year? I am mystified by this.

If you want to increase nuclear spending, you should know the facts. If you want to decrease nuclear spending, you deserve to have the facts. If you just want to fund what we have got, you need to have the facts.

The CBO showed that the Obama administration's plan for maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal is likely to cost some 66 percent more over the next decade than senior Pentagon officials have predicted. Virtually every major project under the National Nuclear Security Administration's oversight is behind schedule and over budget.

I am sorry if the facts are inconvenient for the gentleman, but he should know that if he supports the nuclear program, there will be a day of reckoning. There is no excuse not to have the best information available. This would simply make sure that we are requesting it from the CBO.

And when we are talking about sums on this order of magnitude, to pretend that the CBO can't do this analysis is silly. Of course they can, and there is no reason they shouldn't do it. And if we approve this amendment, it is more likely that we will have it.

I respectfully request that this amendment be approved, whether you want to cut nuclear weapons, reduce nuclear weapons, or just fund what we have got. I look forward to the day that we have a robust debate on the floor of the House about what course we should take, but in the meantime, there is no excuse not to have good information.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I have been listening to the debate this evening following the process, I, too, would offer my congratulations to the chair of the committee and the committee itself dealing with a very difficult situation. There are lots of pressures. They are not just faceless special interests, but we are dealing with businesses, with unions, with the military itself, concerns for their family, the armed services, and the traditions. All of these things make for a very complicated situation.

But I relate to something Mr. Smith said a moment ago, the ranking member, talking about the really hard questions are not really being addressed. We are sort of pushing them down the road when the administration and the Pentagon offered them forward.

I am concerned that we have yet to come to grips with the costs of between a half-trillion and two-thirds of a trillion dollars for our nuclear capacity over the next 10 years. Well, I am offering tonight an easy opportunity to deal with something that can make a big difference to support thousands of brave men and women who make up the Air National Guard, who have proven themselves, especially over the last 13 years, answering the call of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to protecting the homeland without wavering, they have responded time and time again when disaster strikes.

But I want to focus on one particular area dealing with the Air Guard and Reserves' capacity to be able to meet their challenges. My amendment would call the question of whether the House is ready to make a modest change in other funding levels to support the Air Guard.

The amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to procure 10 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar upgrades for the Air Guard's F-15 fleet. We have around the country people who are relying upon a variation of the oldest radars, which are late 1970s technology that went out of production in 1986. It limits their capacity to meet even the most basic of threats and has serious maintenance--not just capacity--but maintenance and operational problems.

I would like to include for the Record this letter of support from the National Guard Association of the United States, which shows why they so strongly support this amendment.

National Guard Association

of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2014.

Hon. Earl Blumenauer,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Blumenauer: On behalf of the members of

the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS),

I would like to thank you for introducing an amendment to the

National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 to increase

funding for Air National Guard (ANG) F-15 Active Electronic

Scanned Array (AESA) radar upgrade.

As you may know, the Air Force currently possesses 248 F-

15C/D aircraft worldwide, with the ANG maintaining 130 (52

percent) of those aircraft. Of the 130 F-15 aircraft the ANG

maintains, 74 possess the oldest APG-63v(0) radar system.

This V(0) radar is a mechanically scanned system and has

significant limitations in capability against most threats

across the globe.

Upgrading the F-15 with the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar provides

a significant technological advantage for both homeland

defense and world-wide operations.

Additionally, the V(3) is dramatically easier and cheaper

to maintain due to its sold state electronics. Studies

indicate that the AESA radar generates approximately 800

percent more reliability than the V(0) radar. It also allows

for true and effective multi-track and attack capability and

increased capability against advanced electronic attack and

small radar cross section targets.

Though the President's budget this year provides for $32.5

million for ANG radar upgrades, NGAUS believes additional

funding on top of this request will help to maintain parity

amongst the Combat Air Force's F-15 in the Active and the

National Guard. Considering the Air Force will have to

maintain F-15s for the foreseeable future, we believe it is

paramount to ensure additional upgrades to the ANG fleet.

NGAUS supports your efforts in the House to increase

funding for ANG F-15 AESA radar upgrades.

Thank you for your leadership and strong support on this

issue and of our National Guard.

Sincerely,

Gus Hargett,

Major General, USA, (Ret),

NGAUS President.

Mr. Chairman, an upgrade for these 10 operating systems would not only provide significant technological advantage for both homeland defense and worldwide operation, but it would--and this is very important--it is actually going to save money over the next 10 years. It is much easier and cheaper than to maintain the current outmoded radars. A small, upfront investment makes our F-15 fighter pilots safer and more effective and saves money in the long run.

Looking for offsets is obviously difficult to do, but what we have done is identify modest reductions in areas that are already far in excess of what the President has requested. In some cases, they are even an additional increment above that which has been offered by the committee in its proposal.

I would hope that the House would approve this modest reduction in these seven accounts. It is not going to undercut our nuclear deterrent, but it will make a huge difference for the men and women who serve in the Air National Guard in terms of their safety, their effectiveness, and in the long run will save money.

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

May I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

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

It is laughable to say that our Air National Guard has all the resources they need. It is not true. And I have entered into the Record argument to the contrary from the people who are actually administering it.

I am happy to debate our REIN-IN legislation, which would be $100 billion. We have far more than we need and can afford. But what I am talking about is $100 million for items that are specified that are modest reductions that aren't going to cripple us and will give the Air National Guard a modern, updated radar system that makes them safer and more efficient.

This is an example of the tradeoffs, sadly, that are not part of this bill that we do need to make. Sooner or later, the day of reckoning will come. In the meantime, this is a small gesture to help approve the capacity of the Air National Guard, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the research tax credit legislation in the Ways and Means Committee, as I have done repeatedly in the past. I intend to do so on the floor as a first step in getting some certainty into a program that has been plagued with uncertainty for as long as I have been in Congress.

The tax credit has been extended 15 times without concern about whether or not it is ``paid for.'' Anyone who has been in Congress for awhile, in essence, has already voted to make it permanent and not pay for it.

Regardless of the budget rules, this is one area of investment that I think probably does pay for itself. It pays for itself in economic activity, scientific breakthroughs, and product development. It advances the interests of not just American companies, but of commerce and our overall economy.

As a country, we are consistently underinvesting in research. There is no substitute for the Federal Government playing the vital role that it has in the past with the development of the semiconductor, the Internet, and the basic role that it has played in dealing with health and medical research.

I don't like how this legislation has been handled. This is an issue that should have been characterized by bipartisanship, by working together to make the research tax credit more effective. We could consider making it refundable to help smaller emerging businesses. We could take a hard look at constructive criticisms that have raised questions about how we could make it work better. That should be our job.

Luckily, this is the start, not the end, of the process. There will be more work that will be done with our friends in the Senate under the leadership of Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch on the Senate Finance Committee, who have already started down this path.

What is very likely to emerge in the short term will not be a permanent but rather a 1- or 2-year extension. It is progress to get it reenacted and to signal broad support for its permanence and refinement.

All of the controversy surrounding tax reform underscores the fundamental challenge.

The inability of the Republican leadership to embrace the work product of Chairman Camp is illustrative. He worked diligently and produced a somewhat simplified code with a lowered tax rate and without adding to the deficit, which is essentially what Republican leadership Presidential ticket claimed they wanted.

Yet my Republican friends are unable to accept the necessary reductions in other tax benefits that come with the package. But there is bipartisan reluctance in this regard.

It illustrates that we are, I think, never going to get out of this box until we have another source of revenue. The most promising would be a carbon tax, which would be broadly distributed throughout the economy. It should be revenue-neutral, using the revenue raised to modify the impacts on lower-income citizens and businesses, and using the rest of the proceeds to keep it revenue-neutral could help us simplify the Tax Code. It might be the only way to reform the Tax Code.

Simplification costs money, which an aging and growing country needs to replace. The carbon tax will do that and will have the added benefit of providing greater simplification for energy-sensitive provisions and, by the way, will help us save the planet.

The report released this week by the administration on climate underscores the impact that climate change and global warming is having now. A carbon tax is the best way to exercise our leadership to change that process. I have long supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and will continue to do so, as the key to long-term tax reform and environmental protection.

In the meantime, I will continue to support individual tax provisions that are important to my community, that help our economy and protect and enhance the infrastructure. I only hope that we are able to make the transition so that we can do this in a more thoughtful and constructive fashion.

Mr. Speaker, today, a bipartisan coalition of Members in the House and Senate have introduced the Afghan Allies Protection Extension Act of 2014 in an effort to protect the thousands of brave Afghan men and women, from translators to drivers, who risked their lives to protect our service members. The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program was created to help them come to America if their safety was threatened as a result of their work on behalf of the U.S. mission.

Too often, however, the Afghans who are supposed to be benefitting from the SIV program have been put through delays and a bureaucratic nightmare, and many have lost their lives. Today's legislation is intended to extend the program while fixing many of these problems that will enable the SIV program to function as intended.

More specifically, the Afghan Allies Protection Extension Act of 2014 authorizes an additional 3,000 SIVs for 2015; authorizes unused FY14 SIVs to be carried forward and issued by the Department of State in 2015; extends the Afghan SIV applicant deadline until Dec. 31, 2015; authorizes the Department of State to process all SIVs that meet the Dec. 31, 2015 application deadline until the authorized SIV cap is met or the processing deadline of Dec. 31, 2016 is reached, whichever comes first; provides parity in the definition of ``family'' between the more thoughtful Iraq definition and the narrow Afghan definition; and finally, allows a critically overlooked population of Afghans--those who worked for U.S. media outlets, NGOs and those who worked for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)--to become eligible for an SIV.

We have frankly fallen short of the mark. It is clear that these Afghan men and women are at risk and that the situation is likely to get worse rather than better. Should America be at war again someday, there is nothing more important than the ability to follow through on our word to aid those who risked their lives to protect our troops.

You don't have to be an American to be an American hero. It's time for Congress to step up and do the right thing for these brave Afghan men and women.

Mr. Speaker, today is National Bike to School Day. How fitting is it that Congressman Jim Oberstar's family's request for the remembrance of our beloved Jim is a contribution to the National Safe Routes to School program?

Tens of thousands of children can get to school today more safely and millions will be more safe in the future because of his tireless efforts over two decades on behalf of that program.

Jim Oberstar, I must confess, was like an uncle to me. Together, we spent

hundreds and hundreds of hours in consultation, planning, touring, and legislating. It was the most effective mentoring possible.

There are those who have been known as ``a man of the House,'' and Jim Oberstar certainly was ``a man of the people's House.'' But even more, he was a man of the T&I Committee, the Public Works Committee.

He rose through the staff ranks to become staff director. Then, succeeding his Congressman, Congressman Blatnik, he became a Member of Congress, and ultimately became its chair. This is something no one else has done, serving as staff director of a committee and then ultimately presiding over it.

As staff, committee member, or chair, or as a member of all the subcommittees, whether in the majority or minority, Jim Oberstar had an outsized influence on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for decades. It is safe to say that over the last 50 years no one had more influence than Jim.

For almost 20 years he was the top Democrat, but most feel he was the top member, period. He was totally seeped in policy, the history, and the mechanics of transportation. But it was not just transportation. It was aviation, marine, the waterways, and waterworks of America as well. They were all his areas of expertise.

Jim Oberstar was a partisan--and not necessarily a political partisan, but he was an infrastructure partisan. A true expert. That is why his partnership with Congressman Bud Shuster, although they were of different parties, was so effective. Bud was Jim's partner for years on the committee, even before either of them assumed their respective top leadership positions.

Infrastructure came first, partisanship second.

One of my most vivid memories was how our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, under the leadership of Jim Oberstar and Bud Shuster, beat Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton when it mattered on our highway bill in 1997.

Jim was a man of remarkable memory and learning. He spoke a half- dozen languages. He never stopped fighting for what he believed in and what he knew for his district, his State, or for the American people.

He was a man of faith that never wavered. But as much as he loved the job of being Congressman, his people, his bicycle, his first love was his family. I don't think he ever recovered from the loss of his first wife, Jo, but then he found Jean. They were married 20 years. They were a remarkable team.

Jean is a knowledgeable and experienced transportation professional in her own right. She knew what Jim's speeches were about. In fact, she could encourage him occasionally, in good humor, to shorten them just a little bit.

Over the years, dozens of members of my staff felt in a sense that they worked for Jim Oberstar as well, because of his commitment, his skill, and his innate decency. I am hearing of their sense of loss from people around the country.

We all knew that Jim Oberstar had a lot to say. What he said was worth listening to. America is a better place not just because of what he said, but what he did in a remarkable career spanning almost 50 years.

Few people had more lasting impact on this institution of Congress and on America than Jim Oberstar. We are all richer for his life of outstanding service.

Mr. Speaker, we have challenges in the United States with the notion of how we are going to protect American-flagged ships, the capacity to be able, in times of national emergency, to provide the transport services that we need.

I have been a supporter of the Jones Act. I think it is important to have cargo preference. I think it is important to be able to manage. I am interested in other areas that we might explore to be able to make sure that the United States is not at the mercy of other nations in times of emergency.

I will say that I have been dismayed at recent activities to force, in the Coast Guard reauthorization, to increase the cargo preference for American food aid from its current level of 50 percent to 75 percent. This is outrageous, and it is not the answer.

The situation we face today is that we require this food to be delivered in American ships. It increases the delay in terms of when the food gets there, and we are competing with local communities.

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, we would do what most international aid countries do when they deliver assistance. They use money to buy local products. This helps support local agriculture, and it provides the food when it is needed, not months later.

The United States primarily delivers surplus commodities that we produce in the United States that are shipped halfway around the world, that arrive often too late, and it is in direct competition to local producers.

It undercuts their capacity to take care of themselves, while our assistance gets there too late, and it increases the cost of doing so.

Now, in times past, the government had reimbursed the cost differential. That was eliminated in the Budget Control Act, so that is gone, and we have had this provision that was snuck in. It was not widely debated. Members of the House and the Senate did not understand what was going on.

We have had terrific leadership from Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel in the House Foreign Affairs Committee to try and focus on ways to be able to provide greater flexibility to United States aid, so we can help more people at less cost and not undercut their capacity to support themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that my colleagues will take a good, hard look at this provision. We need to make sure that this is removed, to at least go back to where it was at 50 percent; but more important, we ought to look at how we provide this food aid around the world.

At a time when we are providing lavish support to American farmers and ranchers, they don't need the additional support to undercut production of food in some of the poorest and most desperate countries in the world.

We ought to stretch those dollars. We ought to make sure that that aid arrives sooner, when it is needed; and we ought not to have this artificial mechanism that is both more expensive, less efficient, and most important, it hurts the people that we are trying to serve.

There is bipartisan leadership in the House that is trying to fix this, working with NGOs around the country and around the world. We ought to roll up our sleeves and do this in a cooperative way and prevent undercutting these poor countries and eliminating the ability to get food to them quickly.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I have listened over the years to my good friend from Virginia, my friend from New York, and Mr. Smith from Washington advance this issue. I think maybe now is the time for us to address this, if only as a going-away present. Because this is the last time Mr. Moran is going to be able to offer this. Since he has decided to leave us for greener pastures someplace else, I think it would be fitting for us to address this directly.

I have great respect for my dear friend from the State of Texas who talks about what the people he represents feel about this issue; and I, with all due respect, wonder if the conversations with his constituents in Texas were like the conversations I have with my constituents in Oregon, if people knew that we are spending eight times as much to incarcerate these people as if they were in other Federal facilities.

The gentleman from Virginia talks about the space that is available now in terms of Federal facilities. Do people know that we have convicted hundreds of people suspected of terrorists acts and, under the provisions of the military tribunal, none? What do our constituents really want if they knew that fact?

The sad truth is that Americans are at greater risk because of our reckless behavior failing to close this sad chapter. The vast majority of these people probably don't pose a risk, and they certainly wouldn't pose a risk incarcerated in our maximum security facilities in the United States.

It is time to close this facility, to honor the rule of law. It strengthens our position internationally, it saves money, and it allows us to actually get some of these people who may be bad guys actually convicted.

Military tribunal doesn't work. Our courts do.

I hope that we will step up, do the right thing, approve this amendment, and give Mr. Moran a going-away present as he leaves Congress.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the hard work of the committee to make sure that our veterans are properly cared for. They deserve our best.

Too many are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with obvious wounds--missing limbs. But over 2.3 million are returning suffering from wounds that are not visible. They are suffering from depression and PTSD. That is why we lose 22 veterans per day who take their lives, long since outnumbering the battlefield deaths. They deserve our best.

Over 100 million people reside in the 21 States, including your home State of California, which was the first to legalize medical marijuana. Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia passed laws that provide for legal access to medical marijuana. As a result, as I say, over 1 million people now have access to it, including many of our veterans who use medical marijuana at the recommendation of their physician to treat conditions ranging from seizures, glaucoma, anxiety, chronic pain, and the symptoms associated with chemotherapy. There are also nine States, including my home State of Oregon, that now allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana for the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

I have heard those stories myself. I will enter into the Record one story that was in the NBC News on April 1 about marine veteran Logan Edwards, who describes how access to medical marijuana may have saved his life.

`Out of Options': Veterans With PTSD Hit Pot Underground

(By Bill Briggs)

[From NBC News, Apr. 1, 2014]

Marine veteran Logan Edwards worried he could become one of

the 22 former members of the armed services who, on average,

commit suicide every day.

Then, he says, he tried marijuana.

Edwards, who served eight months in Iraq, is one of an

unknown number of veterans who have turned to marijuana to

manage Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which may afflict as

much as 20 percent of veterans from the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, according to experts. The Department of Veterans

Affairs doesn't let its doctors prescribe weed, so the former

service members buy it illegally, fib to their doctors,

accept it as a gift, or grow it themselves.

In Edwards' case, he says the drug may have saved his life.

``The first time I used it, I wanted to cry. Because it

took away my anxiety. Because it did everything for me that

the Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants the VA

prescribed me for three years did not do,'' said Edwards, 26,

a resident of Davenport, Iowa. His symptoms--an unrelenting

``hyper-vigilance,'' insomnia and nightmares--emerged ``the

moment we walked off the plane'' in 2008.

``I can function completely fine all day just by using

cannabis. I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My

grades are good. My relationships have healed,'' added the

former Marine. ``It allowed me to get my life back.''

In a March 12 letter, federal health officials approved a

long-delayed study to explore if pot relieves PTSD. But

doctors employed by the VA are banned from prescribing

medical marijuana--and from completing forms that allow

veterans to enroll in medical-marijuana programs. While

medical weed is legal in 20 states, only eight states

recognize PTSD as a qualifying condition for which physicians

can write cannabis prescriptions.

``. . .Due to the way the federal government and the state

want to handle this medical marijuana issue, I still am

forced to spend time away from family, treating these wounds

of war.''

Across that tangled post-war legal landscape, thousands of

combat veterans are tapping underground sources to buy

bootleg marijuana to self-treat PTSD. And in 12 states where

the drug is legal but prohibited for PTSD, many are lying to

doctors that they need medical weed for allowable conditions

like chronic pain, advocates assert. Meantime, vast numbers

of other veterans can't find it, can't afford it, abuse

alcohol to self-medicate, or rely on conventional VA drugs.

``My brothers are killing themselves because they're out of

options,'' Edwards said. ``These VA pharmaceuticals only

exacerbate the problem. The listed side effects on (some) of

the bottles say: `Will increase suicidal ideation.' So the

suicide rate is really what this comes down to.''

U.S. Army veteran Tom Studley, 28, served as a machine

gunner in Iraq for 15-months. He returned to civilian life

with chronic back pain and was diagnosed with PTSD. Studley

was prescribed numerous pharmaceuticals, but he said that by

inhaling marijuana with a vaporizer, he's been able to stop

using those drugs. Here, Studley stands in the shed where he

grows some of the 15 plants he's legally allowed as a medical

marijuana patient in Washington state in Nov. 2011.

With marijuana federally classified as a Schedule I

controlled substance (like heroin and LSD), VA physicians

``will not provide

for use,'' said Gina Jackson, a VA public affairs officer. At

the same time, veterans who participate in legal, medical-

marijuana programs ``will not be denied access to care for VA

clinical programs but should be assessed for misuse, adverse

effects, and withdrawal.''

The possibility of federal drug monitoring--plus fears of

losing VA benefits and the threat of legal trouble--has

driven scores of veterans to secretly use marijuana for

decades to address their PTSD symptoms, several veterans

said.

``Us veterans have already conducted tests on pot and

PTSD--and it works!'' said Vietnam veteran Bob Walker, 69.

``It's nice to see the feds playing catch up.''

PTSD expert Dr. Harry Croft, a San Antonio-based

psychiatrist who has treated veterans for combat-related

anxiety and substance abuse, applauds the federally approved

investigation.

``We owe it to our veterans with this condition,'' Croft

said. ``Unfortunately, present treatment options are not

helpful to many veterans and, therefore, other newer options

should be scientifically explored, including medical

marijuana.''

At Walker's home in Northern California, he ingests pot via

a vaporizer each night before bed. A Marine veteran grows

that marijuana and supplies it free to Walker and a local

network of other Vietnam vets. Diagnosed with PTSD, Walker

tried VA-prescribed Xanax and anti-depressants but found he

could not function on the pharmaceuticals. About 15 years

ago, he said, a VA counselor quietly suggested Walker use

cannabis to relieve his insomnia, anxiety, stuttering and

cold sweats.

``It solved a big problem for me. You feel, well,

lighter,'' said Walker, a former Army aircraft mechanic who

served in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966, watching his best friend

die in a chopper crash. ``Probably 60 to 70 percent of the

vets I know use marijuana for stress reduction and sleep.

It's their baseline medication.''

``I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My grades are

good. My relationships have healed. It allowed me to get my

life back.''

Near Denver, retired Marine and Iraq veteran Sean Azzariti,

32, sees roughly the same rate of pot use among ex-service

members with PTSD. He, too, was diagnosed with the disorder.

But in Colorado, PTSD is not a qualifying condition under

which private doctors can prescribe cannabis to veterans. So,

for four years, Azzariti could not tell his physician the

real reason he needed cannabis and instead said the

prescription would help treat chronic nausea.

Simply because of that forced ruse, pro-marijuana advocates

ensured Azzarti was the first customer in Colorado to buy

legal weed on Jan. 1 when the state began allowing anyone 21

and older to purchase pot. He paid $70 for a strain called

Bubba Kush and pot-infused candy truffles.

``If veterans had another avenue (to treat PTSD), most

would take that and it would save lives. I wouldn't be

talking to you if I didn't have cannabis,'' said Azzariti,

who smokes daily to manage his symptoms. ``Veterans have been

ignored for 30 years, denied what they truly need to heal.

Vietnam veterans could have told us this stuff works.

``That's why I'm open about using it. Sure, there's a

chance I'll lose my $120-a-month (VA) disability benefits.

But that's a small sacrifice to save one life and potentially

change the world,'' Azzariti said. ``With all of these people

coming home from war, (the PTSD and veteran-suicide crises)

are only going to get worse. How are we going to treat that?

We can't just keep throwing pills at people.''

Near Seattle, Iraq veteran Tom Studley, 28, stopped

swallowing pharmaceuticals for his PTSD symptoms four years

ago and instead, he said, gained inner peace by smoking,

vaporizing and eating marijuana.

`The anxiety begins to go away pretty quick and stays away

for a while,'' said Studley, who served as an Army machine

gunner.

After returning, he was prescribed muscle relaxants,

Percocet and methadone for chronic back pain plus Trazodone,

Celexa and hydroxyzine pamoate for sleep and anxiety. On his

property, Studley now grows, harvests and uses cannabis from

his 15 marijuana plants--a legal crop in Washington State.

``I feel,'' he said, ``less out of control.''

In Iowa, Marine veteran Edwards is taking control--but with

a painful plan.

In May, he will move to Colorado, away from his girlfriend

and 3-year-old daughter. He's relocating and transferring

colleges, he said, for one reason: to legally access medical

marijuana to continue managing his PTSD. He's tired of

breaking the law.

``I thought my deployment days, being away from my family,

ended when I got out of the Marine Corps. But due to the way

the federal government and the state want to handle this

medical marijuana issue, I still am forced to spend time away

from family, treating these wounds of war,'' Edwards said.

``I never thought I would have to leave the state and

community I grew up in to get access to medicine that's

working and is better for me than the FDA-approved stuff. I

never thought I would end up being a medical refugee.''

Mr. Chairman, any of my colleagues, whether they are in the State that has legalized medical marijuana or not, can find examples of veterans who are benefiting from this treatment, yet the Veterans Administration specifically prohibits its medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a legal State marijuana program.

The amendment which I am offering today with Representatives Farr, Rohrabacher, and Polis is simple. It ensures that no funds be made available to the VA to implement this prohibition. The amendment would not authorize the possession or use of marijuana at VA facilities. It would simply free up VA providers to recommend medical marijuana or to provide advice upon it in accordance with State laws if they choose.

Over 20 percent of those 2.3 million American veterans suffer from PTSD or depression. While there is no single approach to aiding our veterans with PTSD, we should not use an outmoded policy to serve as a roadblock to the path to recovery. We found that there are nearly 1 million veterans who receive opiates to treat chronic painful conditions. More than half of them continue to use it chronically after the treatment regimen.

Another study found that the death rate from opiate overdoses among VA patients is twice the national average. In States where patients can legally access medical marijuana for painful conditions as an alternative, we shouldn't tie the hands of that primary provider or prevent our veterans from talking to their primary care physicians. They should not be forced outside the VA system to seek a simple recommendation or to get information about these conditions or eligible conditions granted to them by State law. Our VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer recommendations and advice that they think meets the needs of their patients.

This shouldn't be controversial. According to a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine, over 70 percent of physicians said they would, when appropriate, recommend the use of medical marijuana to their patients.

We all know of people with violent nausea as a result of chemotherapy. Why would you deny that to our veterans or at least being able to discuss it? Physicians who support legalizing medical marijuana nationally have exceeded 70 percent in major national polls.

This amendment simply allows veterans to consult with their primary provider, the same right enjoyed by over 100 million Americans today. I urge you to treat our veterans fairly and approve this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I listened to my good friend from Texas. I am troubled here. Why would we force veterans who are entitled to veterans' health and have a primary physician that meets their needs say, sorry, you don't get it in this case, go out on your own nickel, go out and find a new doctor?

We are not talking about prescribing it. We are not talking about using it on Federal facilities. We are talking about giving access to information and having that conversation.

I dare say there is no other medical condition, if it were polio or cancer, that you would say: nope, go someplace else. Go on your own dime. Find somebody--build a relationship with someone who doesn't know your history, who hasn't seen you regularly. You are out of here.

I think that is a disservice to our veterans. I don't think it is anything that--if you talk to veterans' groups, if you talk to the people who benefit from it, that they think that they ought to be denied the ability to consult with their trusted medical provider.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy and the points that she made.

I heard my friend, the chair of the committee, talk about it being against the law. I am not aware of any place--and I would direct this to Mr. Culberson--I am not aware of any place in the statutes where it is illegal for our VA doctors to give advice to our veterans about a treatment that is legal in a State.

What we are talking about is a prohibition that is a directive, so if there is a statute, I would be interested in knowing about it; but even if it is, what if the advice that the VA doctor wants to give is don't use medical marijuana?

They know their patient. Even if it is legal in their State, they think it is not in the best interest of the patient. Your policy would prohibit that doctor from telling that patient: I think it is wrong for you, I don't think it works.

What is the wisdom of prohibiting? You are prejudging what the doctor would say. I think the doctor ought to be able to give whatever advice he or she wants to give.

I would yield to you, if the gentlelady would permit, where is it illegal under Federal law for a doctor to talk about medical marijuana or any other legal treatment?

Right. Where is it in the Federal law that it is illegal?

Where in Federal law? I haven't been able to find that. Where is it prohibited for a doctor to give advice to a patient for a treatment that is legal in their State, pro or con? Where is that illegal?

Right. Where is that illegal under Federal law?

I would like to make the point that the gentleman is wrong. I am happy for him to show us where it is prohibited for a doctor to talk about a legal State treatment. There is no Federal prohibition that we have been able to find because, if I could find it, I would introduce legislation to repeal it.

But my point obtained, what if the advice of the doctor is don't use medical marijuana, which is legal, because it is not right for you, I am your primary physician, why would you prohibit that?

I appreciate it. It is hard to improve upon your eloquence because you are speaking in favor of Dr. Fleming being able to advise a veteran, if he was back at the VA, to say don't use medical marijuana.

This directive would prohibit him from saying to his patient, no, don't do it, and reciting all the facts and figures. Why would we muzzle Dr. Fleming from his professional responsibilities, one way or another, in terms of medical marijuana?

The literature is being built. I just visited with dozens of medical professionals who want to do more research, who want to deal with this in a clinical, thoughtful way. We have got stupid Federal policies that prohibit the research. I have met with parents who have children with violent epileptic seizures, and they are moving to States in which they can get medical marijuana, because they can get it. The physicians cannot get medical marijuana to study, but it is making a difference for these families.

We just ought not to confuse what we are talking about here. We are talking about VA hospital doctors being able to do something that is not prohibited under Federal law, which is talking about the pros and cons of treatment. That ought to be our objective, and that is why this amendment should be approved.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, last night it was my honor to be in the audience as Lincoln High School from Portland, Oregon, won the national Constitution competition. This is a terrific program. The We the People competition has been going on since 1987. It has involved almost 28 million youngsters, nearly 100,000 coaches and teachers, where young people do a deep dive into constitutional underpinnings. I will tell you, these students were no different.

I am pleased that this is the third year in a row that Portland, Oregon, has won: Lincoln 2 years ago, Grant High School, Lincoln again this year.

These are outstanding young men and women. It has been my privilege to have had an opportunity to work with them during their preparation. I am continually impressed with their insight and their commitment.

There is a lot of concern about the state of civic education in the United States today, and rightly so. But these young trailblazers are showing the ability of young people to master the subject, make a commitment, and they are sowing the seeds for productive careers for years to come.

I hope some day this Congress will see fit to once again support this civic education program, which we had done until 2 years ago. It is time to reconsider and see if we can be a partner as well.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget flies in the face of the reality of their own budget. It does nothing to deal with the very real, looming crisis of Social Security. They are afraid to inflict their Medicare solution on the seniors that vote today; instead, it will bite long after the people arguing for it will have moved on.

It repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the taxes and fees they railed against. But there is nothing sadder than yesterday's Ryan soliloquy on how America cannot afford to invest in its future.

Well, we don't think having billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as hardworking Americans would be a blow to prosperity. Our budget invests in America's future--in infrastructure, education, innovation--while the Republicans would sentence this rich, great country to perpetual decline. Mercifully, this won't happen. Their budget will not become law.

Someday, America will invest in our future again, close tax loopholes, and work together to solve our problems. Our budget shows how.