Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 786, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Attorney General Holder said that he would be happy to work with Congress to reexamine how marijuana is scheduled under Federal statutes.

That is a thoughtful effort, but I hope the Attorney General realizes that the time for examination and reexamination has passed. It is now time for him and the administration to act.

The jury has returned its verdict on medical marijuana. More than a million patients use it in managing chemotherapy symptoms, chronic pain, PTSD in our soldiers, and epilepsy, particularly in severe epilepsy that afflicts children; 70 percent of Americans think that medical marijuana should be legal, and I honestly believe that, if the other 30 percent had a child who was subject to these severe epileptic seizures or if a loved one had unbearable chronic pain, they would come around as well.

Marijuana is currently listed as a schedule I drug. That is the same classification as heroin or as LSD. It is higher than cocaine or methamphetamines. This makes no sense whatsoever. No one dies from a marijuana overdose, and the alleged less dangerous methamphetamines have been ravaging communities, particularly in rural and smalltown America, and people do die, and people do commit violent acts.

The Attorney General has called on Congress to act, and in fact, we have. Working in a bipartisan way, we have introduced a variety of bills that do everything from creating a regulatory framework to tax marijuana, to bills to protect State marijuana laws from Federal interference, to legalizing the production of industrial hemp; but the dysfunction of Congress has kept these simple, commonsense bills from passing to this point.

What we need is for the Attorney General and those who work for him at the DEA to at least move marijuana off the schedule I or the schedule II of controlled substances. This is something they can do under their own initiative.

Relisting or delisting marijuana could make it easier for researchers to gain access to the drug. It will allow marijuana businesses, which are perfectly legal in over 20 States, to deduct their business expenses like all other legal businesses.

It could give States more flexibility in dealing with it as a public health issue, and it would reflect what every teenager in America knows--but apparently what the DEA does not know--marijuana is not more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamines, and to pretend otherwise means that young people and the general public will take the DEA less seriously.

I am inviting the Attorney General to visit us here on Capitol Hill, or we will go to his office to go over these points in person with a bipartisan group that has been working on these issues, whose advice and counsel should be helpful to him.

However, the easiest path forward for the Attorney General remains the same: take marijuana off the schedule I. A cab ride to Capitol Hill is not going to change that. We hope we can see some action and see it soon.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time.

As I am sitting on the floor listening to the back and forth and the division, I was thinking back to a time when there was consensus in this body on important investments for our future.

Indeed, the character of our Nation, our economic vitality, was grounded in the investment the United States made in our ports, our railroads, our highways. The finest infrastructure in the world gave the United States the strength to be victorious in battle in World War I and World War II, to have the economic strength to be able to meet national challenges, and to provide economic security and well-being for our families.

Unfortunately, as families struggle, as we have difficulty providing family-wage jobs for American workers, the American infrastructure is no longer the envy of the world, as it was in the past. In fact, all the independent studies show we are not anywhere near the top of the pack. We fall into the lower ranges of the development world.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our infrastructure a grade of D-plus and suggests we will need to invest over $3 trillion over the next 6 years just to remain economically competitive in the global marketplace. The failure to deal with our infrastructure is going to cost American families in terms of wear and tear on their vehicles over $1,000 a year and millions of hours stuck in traffic in congestion.

We are facing a soon-to-be-bankrupt highway trust fund. The clock is ticking. By the end of September, it will run out of money, which means we are seeing cutbacks on Federal contracts this summer, which means some States are having to act now this spring. The decision of Tennessee this last week--it is the 11th State that has announced cutbacks.

The Republican budget being debated today ignores this pending crisis, let alone the growing needs of American communities. Their budget would freeze us in decline, a 30 percent reduction over the next decade from already inadequate levels, making it impossible to deal with projects of national significance and severely straining ongoing maintenance of our highway and transit systems.

It doesn't have to be this way. A broad and powerful coalition ranging from the AFL-CIO to the Chamber of Congress, the trucking association, AAA, bicyclists, environmentalists, local governments, contractors, businesses large and small have joined with a group of 17 bipartisan governors and the heads of 31 State chambers of commerce to urge that Congress face this funding crisis so that we can have a full 6-year reauthorization so that we can put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, strengthen the economy, and protect our communities.

Instead of wasting more time on a budget that is going nowhere, we should come together to address our failing bridges, roads, and water system. Our future demands it, our constituents expect no less.

I strongly urge the rejection of the Republican budget if for no other reason than it freezes us in this decline for infrastructure and look forward to the day when we will work together to solve this problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Just so I understand, the majority has consumed 34 minutes?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I do appreciate the back-and-forth discussion here, but I want to put this in perspective, if I could, because our friends with the Republican budget have assumed, for instance, that we don't necessarily have to raise taxes. We could actually cut some of the loopholes that we have offered repeatedly; and although that is referred to rhetorically, they have never been able to follow through with any that they would cut.

There are Medicaid cuts. And make no mistake about it, these Medicaid cuts are actually reductions in nursing home care for America's most vulnerable. That is two-thirds of this money that it is going to be visited back on the States and impacting families.

They repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they keep all the associated revenues.

We went through a campaign season excoriating Democrats for the reductions in Medicare Advantage, and they keep that in their budget.

There is the magic of dynamic scoring, which we have heard about repeatedly for years, which never really quite proves itself.

And then we have cuts to Pell grants. We heard described in committee that these cuts to Pell grants are not a problem because they are just an excuse to raise tuition and enrich lavish academic salaries.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget would not only freeze us into a downward decline in our infrastructure, it would be the lowest level of nonmilitary discretionary spending that we have seen in generations. It is not going to happen; it shouldn't happen; and my Republican friends should not be able to get away with assuming that this is a viable and responsible approach.

I hope we will come to the point again where we can find a way to come together to deal with things that we actually agree on in a tangible way and make some real progress.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I understand my friend and colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) was on the floor talking about the disingenuous approach here and the discontinuity between what we are talking about today and what we did yesterday in the Budget Committee.

It is an unusual approach to public policy. Where there is a claim that they are, under their budget, if they are able to enact it, going to completely eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but they are going to keep all of the taxes, and they are going to keep the adjustment to the Medicare Advantage Program that was such a focal point in their campaign attacks last year. It was bad when Democrats did it with the Affordable Care Act, but they are going to keep all of those changes.

Last week, we had, by a legislative sleight of hand, a short-term fix for the sustainable growth rate. Now, that is the adjustment that is made on an ongoing basis on physician reimbursement under Medicare that has gotten wildly out of whack. It was something that I voted against when it was first enacted. It is an annual charade that goes on here, where we force people in the medical space to come to Washington, D.C., to plead against draconian cuts.

We actually had been working in the Ways and Means Committee and the Commerce Committee on a bipartisan approach that would actually solve this problem permanently. Then last week, we had an approach that was advanced on the floor of the House by our friends from the majority side that turned its back on the carefully negotiated bipartisan solution that we were close to being able to move forward and patched together another 1-year extension that was going to continue this abuse of people in the medical space, having the threat of dramatic cuts hanging over them.

And what happened? We had a vigorous debate on the floor of the House, where it was pretty clear that this was not going to pass, where we had the medical association and a number of medical professions just opposed to the so-called ``doc fix'' because of the way that it was being done, because of the short-term expedience, because cherry-

picking items that were going to make a long-term solution even harder and subject them to that same treatment.

It was clear to a number of us that it was very questionable whether that would pass. It looked like there would be enough votes to defeat it on the suspension calendar, which would require two-thirds of us to vote in favor of it and is reserved for noncontroversial issues, but this certainly no longer was noncontroversial.

And what happened? The Republican leadership put somebody in the Chair. They went ahead and effectively orchestrated a voice vote that nobody knew was coming. I know that there are Republicans that were outraged about that treatment.

And now, what are we looking at today? We are looking at another effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act. We have people talking about problems with changing the definition of ``part-time employment,'' of people having their working conditions changed for something that--excuse me--is not going to be enforced for larger firms until 2016 and for smaller firms until 2017.

So they are conjuring up a problem here that--maybe people will use it as an excuse for things that they want to do. But nobody is forced to do this at this point. It is not going to take effect for years.

Their proposed solution to probably a nonexistent problem is to blow another hole in the budget of over $70 billion. And, oh, this isn't paid for. It was a requirement to pay for the doc fix. But this little maneuver, $70 billion worth, isn't paid for.

The hypocrisy and the double-dealing here really frustrates me more than I can explain. If we would be able to deal with things in a straightforward fashion, let people know what they are voting on, and try and solve real problems rather than trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act, we would all be a lot better off.

Mr. Speaker, throughout American history, the path to prosperity has been infrastructure. It has been paving that path, building that road, constructing the transcontinental railroad, improving water systems, extending electrification to rural America, dams, flood control, and sewer systems.

Each and every one of these initiatives were key to improving the quality of life for Americans, enacting business opportunities, and putting millions of Americans to work.

They were all public-private partnerships primarily paid for with public investment. Creating these infrastructure marvels, which for most of our history were the envy of the world, put millions of Americans to work.

Sadly, that is no longer the case. The United States has fallen behind the global leaders. Our infrastructure is mediocre, according to expert reports. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our infrastructure a D-plus rating and identified over $3.5 trillion of investments that are going to be necessary just to bring it up to standard by 2020.

That is how far we have fallen--a D-plus rating--and needing billions of dollars just to prevent further deterioration and decline.

The failure to act carries significant costs in and of itself. There is more wear and tear on vehicles. There is more delays and congestion. There are safety problems associated with inferior infrastructure and poor maintenance.

It is going to cost the average American family over $1,000 per year in actual damage and increased operating costs to say nothing of the millions of hours lost to congestion. It hits business especially hard. A 5-minute delay costs UPS $50 million in additional costs each year.

Ten years ago, there was a blue ribbon report to then-President Bush about transportation and transportation funding alternatives. It identified over $375 billion as necessary to fund an appropriate 6-year program. That was 10 years ago.

We are now spending at a rate, 10 years later, of about $275 billion a year at current levels, but the highway trust fund is only going to produce about $200 billion during that same period of time.

Both Chairman Camp in his tax reform proposal and President Obama in his infrastructure proposal identified ways to close this gap to be able to fully fund a 6-year transportation reauthorization that would help meet America's funding needs for projects of national significance that are, in many cases, multistate and are part of a national system. We all depend upon the pieces of the system to be in place in good repair and working together.

Sadly, the Republican budget sentences us to decline and then locks in a 30 percent reduction from these current inadequate levels over the next 10 years.

It pretends the Federal commitment can be downsized and outsourced. Although I would note, in a letter signed by 31 executives of statewide chambers of commerce, they point out:

Even with increased State revenues and innovative

mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, there are

projects of national significance that cannot be completed

without Federal assistance.

I will be offering today a proposal in the Budget Committee to at least allow the capacity to respond to these needs, to meet the requests of 17 bipartisan governors, including Republicans from North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and the 31 State chamber of commerce executives from Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas, to Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. We need these Federal partnerships.

While this proposal won't commit anybody to a specific path forward, it does provide the capacity to get us unstuck and out of this sad state of decline, in other words, a true path to prosperity, putting millions of people to work, jump-starting the economy, and strengthening communities from coast to coast, so that our families can be safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot express my disappointment with the proposed additional temporary patch to the sustainable growth rate, or the SGR-- the ``doc fix.''

This was a contrived solution from the very beginning, and it has morphed into a shameful annual ritual, disrupting the provision of medical services in this country, as the parade of medical professionals come to Washington, D.C., to plead with us to not do something crazy.

It is simply, today, an accounting sleight of hand. It is a power play and a fundraising tool, to be sure, that disrupts the practice of medicine.

We have absolutely no intention of ever having the SGR cut occur, but we are not going to allow a reduction on that order of magnitude. We will find some sort of adjustment, as we always have, that will not be satisfactory and will continue the uncertainty and the indignity that is inflicted on people in the health care space and, more important, on the people that they serve.

If you want to actually cut health care spending, we could do so. And if we would stop this charade of meaningless gestures of repealing the Affordable Care Act and actually get down to cases, fine-tuning, and moving forward, we could be there.

There are a range of potential savings within the health care space that is acknowledged by virtually everybody in the industry and every expert that has looked at it. But it can't be done in a cavalier fashion according to some ritualistic formula, and it can't be done overnight, and it is going to require a steady hand, including politicians acting like grownups.

In the meantime, I think it is important to stop this travesty.

Remember, when we had a similar pointless exercise with the alternative minimum tax, realizing that the supposed savings were not real, that the full bite would never take effect, what did we do? We didn't ``pay for it,'' we finally reset the budget baseline and moved on.

That is exactly what we should do with the SGR, and then deal meaningfully with the adjustments in accelerating health care reform, not a 54th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

We should be rewarding people who are providing high-value care and finding ways to be more efficient, and adjusting the system to slowly squeeze out our areas of inefficiency. It won't be easy, but it is definitely within our capacity--and it is already starting around the country.

Maybe Congress should consider debating this issue with an open rule, allowing everybody to come to the floor to speak, to offer amendments, to debate it fully, and see what we can come up with. It won't be any worse.

Let's end this charade, give the health care space some certainty, and get down to work being a full partner in the reform and enhancement of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, the history of our country, our economic development, is predicated on our infrastructure development. Early in our history, canals, ports, postal roads, and 152 years ago, the transcontinental railroad--audacious at the time--proved to be a critical element of tying our nation together, fueling economic growth and communication.

Later, we had the interstate freeway system, which had its genesis going back over a century, nurtured in the basement of Franklin Roosevelt's White House, signed into law, and advocated by President Eisenhower.

One wonders: Could this Congress in Washington, D.C., today have produced the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, provided the resources, the resolve, the research to send humans to the Moon? You have to pay for it. You have to take a risk. You have to have a plan and a design.

Sadly, it appears that that is lacking at this point.

I spent years on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which I finally left to go to Ways and Means and to serve on the Budget Committee to try and deal with the financing issue.

In 187 days, the highway trust fund is exhausted. It is not just that the reauthorization extension expires on September 30, but we have drawn the trust fund balances down to zero. It is already starting to be felt around the country. Because you cannot manage the multibillion- dollars worth of commitments that the Federal Government has made in partnership with State and local communities and the private sector without having some range of a financial cushion, probably on the order of $4 billion.

So that means that the Federal Government is going to start delaying the release of funding and having to choose which obligations it honors well before September 30. That means cutting back funding this summer is going to make a difference for local communities later this spring. Already, States are dealing with this uncertainty and making decisions, putting at risk, in some cases, construction seasons.

I think we have reached the point that there are no more cans to kick over or seat cushions to reach behind. If that doesn't make sense to you, sleight of hand, to use another general fund fix.

We have transferred outright over $50 billion to the general fund since 2008, and we have backfilled by using the Recovery Act, or the so-called stimulus funding. We made an adjustment in the Tax Code dealing with provisions for retirement benefits that were adjusted that somehow gave us a little headroom that enabled us to fund a 27-month extension.

But we are running out of these fixes, and we are not giving the certainty that the private sector, local governments, State governments, that our communities need to be able to deal with the more complicated, more expensive, longer-term projects, especially those that may involve more than one State, those that may be multimodal in nature. These expensive and complicated projects require steady, stable sources of funding.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 21 years since the Federal Government last adjusted the gas tax. It was 1993. That is back when gasoline was $1.08 a gallon. It is back when there were fewer demands in terms of the highway trust fund, when cars were less fuel-efficient.

In the course of that time, we have watched inflation eat away at the value of that 18.4 cents a gallon that people pay for their Federal gas tax, and because people are using more fuel-efficient cars and because the vehicle miles traveled have been reduced for 9 consecutive years, the amount that the individual pays per mile to support our Federal transportation infrastructure has been cut by more than 50 percent. And Congress has been dancing around this issue.

I have proposed that we adopt the recommendation of the Simpson- Bowles Commission that was so widely heralded 3 years ago, to have a phased 3-year increase in the gas tax.

I would note that it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the AFL-CIO, by local governments, by transit agencies, environmentalists, by professional groups and organizations, local officials.

It is interesting that the AAA, representing auto users, and the trucking industry have both said: Federal Government, you should raise the fuel tax--not that we are wild about the fuel tax, but because the costs of not doing it are going to cost our motorists, going to cost our trucking industry and the American economy far more than the few cents per gallon that would be paid.

I have also introduced legislation that would extend the vehicle mile traveled experiment that Oregon has been doing over the course of the last 10 years. That would allow States to experiment with a different approach that wouldn't be based on gallons of fuel consumed, but based on actual road use, so that people can experiment for themselves to see if this is a promising solution.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 15 years, I have watched blue ribbon commissions come forward impaneled by Republicans and Democrats.

I have listened to the testimony from the business community, from organized labor, from local government, from experts all across the scale who have recommended that we step up and adequately fund the highway trust account, so that we can provide the certainty and the capacity to be able to rebuild and renew America.

I, for one, am open to all sorts of suggestions; but it is interesting to note, when my friend Dave Camp introduced his tax reform proposal that would have allowed some space for the highway trust fund, which was announced on the same day that President Obama--who I think sincerely is interested in infrastructure--a proposal for $300 billion--over $300 billion--that both proposals were pronounced dead on arrival, that they had no political backing, they had very little likelihood of being passed.

When they made their announcements, they were not joined by labor, by business, by local government, by the professions, by people in both parties who are concerned with getting on with business.

I will have more to say, but I have been joined by a couple of my colleagues who are concerned about this, who have been working in this arena, who have some proposals, and I would turn first to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), who has been working in this space, adding to the conversation in a way to help us move forward. I am happy to yield to him for some comments.

I appreciate the gentleman joining us and couldn't agree more about the critical nature of investing in our economy and putting people to work. Millions of jobs are at stake, jobs that won't be outsourced overseas. I appreciate your joining in that conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like next to turn to the dean of the Oregon delegation, someone with whom I have been privileged to work for over 3 decades. Congressman Peter DeFazio is a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, ranking member of Natural Resources, somebody who I have found to be tireless in his promotion of infrastructure investment, creative in terms of ways to approach it.

Mr. Speaker, I think a number of us would be open to any mechanism that provides steady, predictable resources that would be able to meet the needs because, before you can have public-private partnerships so you can deal with financing, you have got to have the underlying funding.

There is nobody who has spent more time and creativity and taken more risks to advance that than my friend and colleague, Peter DeFazio.

I am very pleased that you have joined us to be a part of this conversation and can't say enough for your tireless efforts to try and make sure that we realize the promise of infrastructure investment and that we actually do it.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

If the gentleman will yield.

Like you, I am on the plan going home every week. But for a weekend, I was at a conference, and so I missed being home for 10 days. In the space of 10 days, gasoline went up 19 cents a gallon at my corner gas station; and the next weekend, it had gone up 30 cents a gallon in 3 weeks. That didn't fill one pothole, didn't put one person to work. Thirty cents in 3 weeks.

Thank you.

Well, I deeply appreciate, again, your partnership and your leadership; and what you just demonstrated, a series of

ways that we could have adjustments to transportation finance that would be predictable, sustainable, and, as you have pointed out, at a time of record-low interest rates, having a steady revenue stream would permit us to be able to take advantage of that favorable borrowing environment to get multiple benefits. Essentially, if we had done that earlier, as you and I had suggested during the Recovery Act, essentially, we would have had free money because the interest rates were so low. But I appreciate your tenacity and creativity.

We have been joined by another of our colleagues.

Congresswoman Titus, I must say, I deeply appreciated your hospitality when we visited Nevada, looked at transportation needs, met with people in your community who rely on being able to have this infrastructure work. You have been on a roller coaster in Nevada in terms of boom and bust, but I deeply appreciated your being able to help me understand those dynamics. Your leadership in this arena is welcomed, and I yield to you to join into the conversation.

Thank you so much, Representative Titus.

It was fascinating, when we visited with your constituents, how passionate they were identifying the problems; and I commend you for working with them to try to squeeze what you could out of inadequate Federal, State, and local funding, but worked to try to help with the design, help with the advocacy. They were truly fired up and had lots of ideas about things to do.

And you are right. It would be a travesty if, when we are urging people to be able to do more walking and cycling, to reduce energy, to improve air quality and improve their health, if, in turn, we are putting more families at risk. And being able to have safe routes to school, being able to deal with pedestrian safety and making it part of the mix, I can't say enough about how much I admire your commitment to balanced transportation, to be able to tie those pieces together, and how you worked with your local constituents. It is truly a model, and I look forward to continuing with you on that in the future.

I do want to say that I also appreciate the reference to the economic impact in terms of the men and women who work in this arena. We have millions of tradespeople, men and women in the construction industry who have the necessary skills to rebuild and renew America, who want to work, and in too many of our communities have suffered disproportionate unemployment as a result of the near meltdown of the economy and the too slow recovery.

Being able to tap that energy, that excitement and that commitment I think is very, very important. I have been so impressed as we go around the country looking at the people there who are willing to put those skills to work, and it is an opportunity for a wide range of employment opportunities.

There are opportunities for people who are primarily just working with their hands where there is a lot of manual labor involved. There are a number of skilled opportunities in terms of what has happened in the trades in terms of equipment operation that adds increasing sophistication. There are jobs that are pencil ready where there is design, planning, and management. So there is a wide range.

My colleague mentioned the 20,000 jobs per billion dollars, and that 20,000 jobs includes lots of bedrock, middle class American, family- wage job opportunities, but for a wide range of skill sets and for people to get their feet on the ground to be able to build skills and move further in the advancement of their careers.

I really appreciate your advocacy there and would yield to the gentleman for further comment.

I appreciate your detailing the difference it made with that company in your district and the multiplier effect for the employment for the various aspects of that product. It has been exciting for me to look at the range of people who are adding their voice to the cry for the Federal Government to step up and for Congress not to be AWOL on this and not have the collapse of the trust fund.

The range of people who have a keen interest in our being responsible and who are adding their voices is fascinating. There are big equipment manufacturers, like the Catapillars of this world, and smaller. There are people who lease heavy equipment. There are people who are involved with design and construction, people who are there with the materials, asphalt and concrete, sand and gravel; people who are there with the iron and steel that is necessary, the concrete.

You go through the range of people who are vitally interested in our meeting our responsibilities and who have the capacity of making huge economic contributions and who are ready, willing, and able to do so, and the vast majority of these jobs are right here in the United States. They are not going to be outsourced. Lots of equipment, manufacturing, and materials are right here. It is cost prohibitive for us not to. So it provides that local economic spark. Then there is the multiplier effect of the coffee shop across the street from the project and the people who are providing materials and supplies, people who benefit from this in dramatic ways.

I do appreciate your reminding us of how we have lost track of where we are in terms of global leadership. We were leaders in the development of our canals and the steam engine. We were leaders with our transcontinental railroad. Nobody did anything on that order of magnitude. We had the finest passenger rail system in the world up until about 70 years ago. We had the finest highway system. You can go through the list of areas that we were justifiably proud of being a global leader. And it was not just prestige. It was health, it was safety, and it was economic impact that made a difference. We appear to have lost our way.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, there was no high-speed rail in China. And in 6 years, they have grown a high-speed rail system that will next year carry more passengers than the entire American aviation system. Other countries are building ports and highways and upgrading water and sewer. And we are stuck, we are losing ground, and it is Congress that has failed to step up for over two decades.

I yield to the gentleman.

Absolutely. I have really appreciated your laser focus. At the time, you and I both wanted more investment in infrastructure. Something in the neighborhood of 40 percent were tax cuts that people didn't even think they got, that didn't have the multiplier effect, that we would have been well served to double or triple the amount of investment in infrastructure.

But I have been struck--and I know you have--that even though it was inadequate, that we could have done more and should have done more. I am struck by the number of businesses that have told me that that investment was the difference of whether or not their business was going to go under. We had people making bids at that time basically just to cover payroll. We got some of the most favorable bids that were offered up because people were desperate for that work, and so it stretched even further.

If we had had the foresight to invest more and then take advantage of the fact that the world was basically giving us their money for free, we could have had a tremendous impact. But the truth is that people were desperate for it. It made a difference, and it is a hint of what we could do if we did this right.

I am going to turn to my colleague for a moment for the last word, but I wanted to just say one thing in terms of my concluding observation.

I have been struck, in the 3 months since we have advanced these proposals, by the breadth of editorial support, by the unions, local governments, and elected officials in both parties who are stepping up at the State level to do this. Wyoming, I think, was the latest State that went ahead and raised a gas tax. We are hearing from engineers, and we are hearing from advocacy groups like truckers and Triple A that are doing the right thing and making a difficult recommendation because they know it is the right thing, and they think it is time to have an adult conversation with the American public.

I think it is time for us to listen to the people out there who don't just want, they are insisting that we meet our obligation as a full partner in infrastructure investment in this country, as we have done for years with State and local government, with the private sector, and with local communities.

I am convinced that it is one of those areas that once we get there and take the step, that it will bring the country together.

Mr. Speaker, historically, infrastructure has been an area that has rallied public support. People came together for these projects. I am convinced that if we step up and do our job, listening to people and giving that support, that it can be that same sort of rallying point. I don't want to be involved in a conversation about whether it is the Republicans' fault or the Democrats' fault, or it is the House versus the Senate or the legislative versus the executive. There has been enough foot-dragging over the last 20 years to go around.

So my hope is we can use this going forward to make a difference. I cannot thank you enough, Congressman DeFazio, for your insistence, your leadership, your persistence, your creativity, and your courage on this. It really makes a difference for those of us who are pushing for the path you have blazed and your continued, ongoing zeal to make this work.

Well said, and I have nothing to add to that eloquence.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a health care crisis in this country, but one few have heard about because we don't think about it until it hits us or our family, but it almost always does.

As we approach the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, that tragedy might serve as an illustration. Who in that crowd in Boston, almost a year ago, thought they would be facing not just life- or-death medical decisions, but about who would decide whether a leg would be amputated or not?

Who speaks for our loved ones when they can't speak for themselves? Who speaks for us when we are unable to speak? And how would they know what we want? This has profound implications.

Over 80 percent of Americans feel they want to spend their last days at home, surrounded by loved ones, lucid, aware, and enjoying their company. Unfortunately, about three-quarters of us spend our last days in a hospital, maybe in ICU, with tubes up our noses and heavily sedated. Is that exactly what we want? Who decides? And how will people know what my decisions or your decisions might be?

The failure for us to deal with this issue--whether it is the health care system, the Federal Government, individual families--can lead to tragic consequences. People can get the wrong care, be removed from their loved ones, sometimes get intrusive, expensive, and painful care when that is not their wish, drugged and helpless.

The failure doesn't just lead to unwanted care and pain, denying people the treatment they want, but it can have huge consequences on families. The loved ones left can be racked by guilt and uncertainty that can increase the trauma and the depression after the passing of a loved one. Commentators as diverse as Billy Graham and Dr. Bill Frist have spoken out eloquently about this need for all of us to spare our loved one's doubt and uncertainty.

This is an interesting test for Congress. Can we take steps that are supported by over 90 percent of the population that will lead to better patient care and satisfaction that empowers families to face medical emergencies the way they want?

This is, it should be noted, not just an issue for someone who is elderly with a terminal disease. Any of the bright, young people on Capitol Hill living away from home, perhaps for the first time, perhaps with some friends, can fall and suffer a concussion slipping on the ice or in a soccer game or in a car accident.

What have we done on Capitol Hill to make sure we know in each office who speaks for us and our staff if we are no longer able? One simple solution is to support H.R. 1173, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by over 50 Members that Dr. Phil Roe and I have introduced. The government that will pay tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars towards operations would finally pay maybe $150 or $200 for a doctor to consult with the patient and their family to find out exactly what their choices might be and make sure their wishes are respected.

Don't just cosponsor the legislation, but use it to have a serious conversation with your staff and your family if you haven't had the discussion. Let's make sure that everyone on Capitol Hill is protected when the inevitable happens, and let's make sure the Federal Government is a full partner. Cosponsor H.R. 1173, and then let us work to enact it.

Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times had a jarring reminder of the fate for those Afghans who put their trust in the United States when they decided to help us as interpreters, as guides, providing a variety of services that made the American mission possible. Indeed, our soldiers, our diplomats, countless Americans have put their lives in the hands of these brave partners. There was a promise, that we would be there for them, just as they were there for us.

Sadly, this is a promise that has been broken time and time again. For the last 10 years, I have been working on an initiative to have the special immigrant visas to allow these trusted partners, whose lives are now at risk, to escape to safety and freedom in the United States.

Too often we have had a program mostly in name only. Visas were authorized, but through lack of attention, resources, commitment, focus, the paperwork languished. People have been in a bureaucratic hell, impossible conditions created, and to be met by despair and too often threats, injury, and, sadly, death of the people who trusted us. During the height of the government shutdown, we were nonetheless able to come together to bring the program back to life, or at least put it on life support.

I deeply appreciate the staff of Majority Leader Cantor and Minority Whip Hoyer. Their key staff members worked with a bipartisan coalition. Special thanks to Adam Kinzinger and Tulsi Gabbard, two new Members of Congress who served in theater in the Middle East, who know what the problems are and our commitment to those who helped us.

Because of this team we were able not only to keep it alive, we secured some real advances in the Defense Authorization Act. We are hearing noises from the administration and the many bureaucracies involved: the State Department, Homeland Security, FBI. There are lots of places for the system to break down, yet there appears to be some greater commitment but still not enough action.

Again, this morning, there is a reminder of the reality of our government having failed to deliver. For too many of us, it is a story in The New York Times. But for the Iraqis and the Afghans left behind, they don't need a story in a foreign newspaper, except the people who are featured in these stories miraculously often get their cases expedited. For the rest of these poor souls, they have a daily reminder of the threats, the assaults, of what it means to be left in the tender mercies of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Next month, I will be introducing legislation for the next steps. I would strongly urge my colleagues to remember that brief moment when we came together during the shutdown to keep the program alive.

Please join me in cosponsoring the legislation because it is not enough just to keep the program alive. Let's come together to make the program work so those partners of America in Afghanistan and Iraq themselves can be kept alive.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. Chair, there is nothing here in terms of what the administration has done that is ill-considered or reckless. I am sorry that there is opposition to protections that were put in place by the Reagan administration dealing with stream buffers, simple and common sense, which would indeed merit the support by virtually all of our colleagues.

We have seen that the last-minute efforts by the Bush administration to circumvent protections for mountaintop removal were rejected by the courts because they did not deal adequately with requirements of the Endangered Species Act. We are still facing the specter of taking the debris from mountaintop removal mining and putting it in our streams and waterways, and we would sentence our States to not be able to put in place

more effective and stringent protections if they wanted to but force them to follow this outdated and rejected proposal and wait until 2021 to be able to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, this is an expression, I think, of frustration on the part of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle for the fact that they are on the wrong side of history, they are on the wrong side of science, and they are on the wrong side of public opinion; and simply declaring that the administration is out of control or EPA is overreaching or there is a war on coal doesn't make it so.

People can see for themselves the devastation from mountaintop removal and the fact that we have been negligent as a country for years providing adequate protections.

I would hope that the Chamber sees fit to reject legislation that is not going anyplace and that we stop the charade of initiatives that are conjuring up imaginary threats when we are not focusing on the clear and present dangers to the environment now, to community protection, and for health. Reject this legislation, and then let's get down to business on things that really will make a difference and that we can agree upon.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

I was somewhat embarrassed by the remarks of my friend, who is from Butler, Pennsylvania, the hometown of my wife, because it is the Republicans who have decided to make this bill about the next election.

There is no reason the House Republicans put the medical community through this charade again and again, year after year, except to use the SGR as a tool for power, partisan advantage, and fundraising.

This political tool disrupts the lives of millions of medical providers and tens of millions of their patients who rely upon them.

We had, in fact, been making remarkable progress in both the Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on a bipartisan solution. Instead, the Republicans have hijacked this bipartisan solution and made it so bad that even the American Medical Association rejects it.

What then should we do? First, we should reject this bill overwhelmingly. It certainly will never be enacted into law.

What should we do then? I would argue that we ought to just reset the baseline.

Remember the alternative minimum tax? We finally decided it would never be imposed. Adjusted the budget to reflect the fact that it will never happen. And if you won't do that, at least give the medical community procedural fairness.

Kevin Brady said, Let's work in a bipartisan approach. He admits that this isn't going to be the last word. Well, let's try procedural fairness. Allow the bipartisan proposal on the floor under an open rule for a full debate and amendment.

Now there is a novel thought. Let the legislative process work and let the House work its will. Then this shameful charade will end.

Mr. Speaker, today, on Capitol Hill, we are watching several hundred dedicated volunteers fan out to share their vision of the United States' providing leadership for safe drinking water and sanitation around the globe.

They will point out that, today, women will spend 200 million hours gathering water for their families--200 million hours that will not be spent farming or in economic enterprise, 200 million hours that will not be spent in school, 200 million hours that too often take them away from the village and put them at risk for physical sexual assault. They will be talking to our colleagues on Capitol Hill about some critical legislation that my colleague Ted Poe and I have introduced, H.R. 2901, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, which will, in a deficit- neutral fashion, help refine the approach that the United States, the USAID, and the State Department take in providing water assistance around the globe.

I must say, this morning I heard, in an eloquent fashion, Congressman Poe lay out the need, the vision, and the solution. I cannot say enough about the bipartisan leadership of my colleague from Texas. He points out that, as a Democrat from the Northwest, I don't have all that much in common with my Republican friend from Texas, but this is an area in which we are united. The United States must do all it can to prevent unnecessary disease and death from contaminated water, but it goes beyond issues of disease and sanitation.

Look at what has happened in Syria. Between 2006 and 2011, nearly 60 percent of Syria's landmass was ravaged by a severe drought. The water table was already too low because of irresponsible farming practices. It wiped out the livelihoods of almost a million Syrian farmers, and it created a massive population of drought refugees that flooded into the cities and added to the instability of that tragic country.

It did not cause the civil war, but the failure of the government to respond to the drought played a huge role in fueling the uprising, made possible by that sad, tragic consequence of events. Now the fourth largest city in Jordan is a refugee camp where men and women and children are fighting for survival and water as they cross the border to escape the violence. And this is a growing problem. The global population has now passed 7 billion people, and much of that growth has taken place in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, two regions of the world in greatest need when it comes to water and sanitation.

Mr. Speaker, we have within our capacity the ability to make a difference, and I am pleased to have worked with volunteers from coast to coast--from churches and rotary clubs and students--who are making a difference in their own communities. It is important for Congress to pass the Water for the World Act and to support the terrific work of Congresswomen Granger and Lowey, on the Appropriations Committee, that has protected and has actually enhanced a little bit this important money that the United States provides--a small amount in the overall scheme of things but one that has a tremendous impact on lives around the world.

I urge my colleagues to take the time to listen to these dedicated volunteers. They have a message we should take to heart and act upon.

Recently, the Reverend Billy Graham, in his latest book, talked about the situation that families face in the difficult circumstances surrounding end of life.

Reverend Graham said:

Refusing to act on the practical issues that confront us as

we grow older or simply ignoring them often becomes a sure

recipe for turmoil and conflict within a family.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was a physician long before he entered politics, said in an op-ed that appeared in one of the Capitol Hill publications:

In the absence of advanced care planning, patients are much

more likely to receive medical interventions that can

actually prolong or worsen their suffering and will certainly

increase expense for their loved ones.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to work with the American Society of Oncology, who gave us further evidence. They have a report and recommendations that are coming forward that I think ought to be commended to each and every one of us. They pointed out that palliative care is not an either/or choice in terms of therapies. They found in one study that people who receive both palliative care and chemotherapy lived 3 months longer and more comfortably than people who just got the medical intervention.

Additionally, further in their study, they pointed out that it isn't just the patient; it is the people who help serve ill patients who receive palliative care therapy. They suffer less emotional stress. ICU and hospital deaths are associated with more psychiatric illness among bereaved caregivers compared with home hospice.

Yet, as they pointed out, the sad truth is, for many insurance companies and our Federal Government, that although patients are entitled to make informed choices about their palliative care and treatment options, our Nation's health care system currently places no value on conversations that can guide these decisions.

It is true; Medicare will pay $100,000 on a complex surgical procedure on a 90-year-old woman with terminal cancer, but it won't pay $200 for her and her family to understand the circumstances that they face, understand what their choices are and make sure that their choices, whatever they are, are respected.

It, frankly, is embarrassing to me that Congress and the administration have not been able to respond to an issue that is supported by 90 percent of the American public, that will cost us no money, and that will assure that patients receive better treatment and we reduce the stress on their families.

That is why my friend, Congressman Phil Roe, himself a physician from Tennessee, and I have introduced the Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 1173. This would provide for voluntary advance care planning consultation in Medicare and Medicaid every 5 years or in case there is a change in health status. It would provide grants to establish or expand physician orders for life-sustaining treatment programs, require that certified electronic health records display current advance directives and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment--what people want--and help make sure that their wishes follow them when they cross State lines.

Currently, we have over 50 bipartisan cosponsors of this simple, commonsense approach to give American families what they need and what they say they want. I would strongly urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, to join us in cosponsoring it, and move in Congress and with the administration to remedy this serious oversight.

Mr. Speaker, last month, Portland lost an extraordinary citizen with the passing of William Richard (Dick) Cooley. It was my honor to know and work with Dick Cooley for most of our professional lives. My friend was first and foremost a planner. It ran in his blood, he came by it honestly.

His father, Bill Cooley, was a big picture guy, a successful developer who served on the Multnomah County planning commission and was someone who was extraordinarily helpful to me when I was a new county commissioner. He had great depth of understanding about what was then Oregon's second largest city: unincorporated mid-Multnomah County. Bill Cooley played a significant role as a developer in an area where homes spring up rapidly, but he didn't just help build

the community, he located his family in the middle of it, and then helped lead it.

Dick Cooley grew up in the midst of this dramatic change in the region. I had a connection being in an adjacent high school district, Centennial, next door to him. His high school alma mater was David Douglas, which was then the largest high school in the state of Oregon. It was then a symbol of excellence and Dick Cooley fit right in. It's where he developed the characteristics and skills that would serve him so well later in life. He was far more than a planner; he was a successful developer and builder who also had a career in banking and later, was in key business positions in the real estate arm of Pacific Power and Light, Pacific Development. This company took the audacious step of buying a huge tract of urban central city property known as the Lloyd district, well over 100 acres of opportunity that has continued to be a source of developmental activity, to be a key new district now blossoming within the central city. Dick Cooley was an investor who made strategic property purchases not just on the highest rate of return or the fastest rate of return, but working to put the pieces together to create long-term value.

It was this combination of the instincts of planner and an investor that made him a natural choice to follow in his father's footsteps to become a member of the Multnomah county planning commission.

I was pleased to appoint him to the Portland Planning Commission where he was an extraordinarily valuable leader in the important activities of the late 1980s and 1990s. He provided leadership not just as the chair of the planning commission, but understanding how to help people come together to create value. He played a vital role in helping shape and guide my Albina community plan, which was perhaps the high water mark in Portland's planning for people. This lead to the revitalization of some of Portland's most troubled neighborhoods. Streets you wouldn't feel comfortable driving down then, you can now stroll with visitors to show Portland at its best. Dick was essential in bringing fellow planning commissioners, citizens and the city council together to make it happen.

Yet his planning, patience and investment strategies were most compelling when it came to people. It started with his circle of family and friends, especially his loving 20 year relationship with his wife Leslie. It was a joy to be around them both. No one worked harder at being a parent then my friend Dick, and his children, Sarah and Alex were never far from his thoughts.

Whether Dick was planning, being a father, husband, friend, he was always giving of himself. He never forgot that he was a kid from mid- Multnomah County, David Douglas High School, and he would return to his community roots time and time again. Most notably and recently, the countless hours he spent trying to assist his former neighbors contend with a community that is now fighting decline. He worked with them helping realize their vision for the gateway area, long after he left the planning commission.

He could not keep himself from providing leadership. He provided leadership until last year for the Portland street car, another Dick Cooley contribution to revitalizing our community and inspiring cities across America. Dick's values blended seamlessly. Friendship, family, business, community; they were all part of a broader sense for the greater good. It is trite to say, but he was truly a unique human being. I've never seen anyone tie together those pieces the same way in such shy, quiet, unassuming fashion. He was smart as a whip and credentialed, but he didn't care about status and credentials, for himself or anyone else. He was still the kid from David Douglas, who just happened to be student body president, an athlete, an actor, a successful scholar who went off to Harvard. He didn't just wear this well, he disguised it. What he cared about was the human connection. If you knew Dick well, that was what you expected; you almost took it for granted. If you went on an early morning walk, he was the guy with the flashlight for you, maybe an extra bottle of water wondering if you're going to be late for your next appointment. He was always asking how you were. It was a detailed sort of checking in, about how you were really doing, your family, what you were thinking, who you were connected with.

His men's group was a critical part of who Dick was for two decades, but he wanted to share and understand that type of experience. He encouraged others to stake out their own circles to have the same connection. Dick will always be connected to us. Truly an extraordinary human being, who left us too soon, but who lived an amazingly rich and full life. We're all richer for that connection with him today, which continues every evening at 6:30 as his friends pause to remember Dick and what he meant to us all.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of men and women are in Washington, D.C., this week representing America's transit agencies, millions of transit users, with the highest ridership in over a half century: 10.7 billion rides.

Tomorrow, they will be joined by over two dozen streetcar cities. This is one of the fastest growing new development and transit tools that is taking place all across the United States. They are here seeking the Federal Government to step up and do its job.

For the first time in over 150 years, the Federal Government is in retreat on infrastructure. It all started, as you know, with the Constitution designating postal roads as one of the first obligations of our new country, and then we were involved with the development of a system of canals to help promote American commerce.

152 years ago, the Transcontinental Railroad Act was passed that ultimately tied America together from coast to coast and led to the finest passenger and freight rail system in the world.

Later, there were massive water projects in the West, electricification projects that brought the magic of electricity to rural and smalltown America. The interstate freeway system that began germinating under the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression, blossomed into full flower, signed by President Eisenhower in 1956.

Mr. Speaker, we have established mass transit, with Ronald Reagan establishing a transit account, guaranteeing 20 percent of the gas tax revenues for that critical function and actually raising the gas tax a nickel a gallon, legislation signed by President Reagan.

And then there was the legislation in 1992, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, that promoted flexibility and a large- scale vision process to make the system work. Even the much-maligned Recovery Act, the so-called stimulus, had billions of dollars to help rebuild the country. But we have been stuck now for over a decade.

In 204 days, the bottom falls out of the highway trust fund, which means the Feds are going to have to cut back on transportation funding this summer, which means this spring, State and local governments are going to be holding back.

I have been working with business, labor, and environmental leaders, local governments, AAA, the truckers, bicyclists, and contractors to be able to come forward with a funding program that will work. The first gas tax increase in 21 years is what we have proposed that would be indexed for inflation so we wouldn't have to go through this anymore.

In addition, H.R. 3638 would explore the new methodology that was used in an Oregon pilot project that would pay for road use based on a user fee for the distance traveled. It has the opportunity not just to fund transportation but to transform the travel system in the United States.

Congress needs to step up. What are their solutions if they don't want to raise the gas tax for the first time in 21 years? Maybe we could have a hearing before the Ways and Means Committee on how we are going to finance the reauthorization.

We can, in fact, solve this problem. We can put millions of people to work to revitalize our communities and to make our families safer, healthier, and economically secure. When these men and women visit you on Capitol Hill, please be prepared to say: If not raising the gas tax, tell them what is your solution so that we don't fall off the cliff in 204 days and retard vital progress?