Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad moment as we consider a farm bill that has the least amount of reform possible to secure passage. I am thankful that some of the most hateful and egregious-- like the King amendment--have been stripped out, but the savings from direct payments will be swallowed up by enriched crop insurance.

My friend Paul Ryan is concerned that the safety net for the poor has become too comfortable a hammock. But this farm bill is now a lounge chair for rich agribusiness interests, who need it the least. It should be a scandal that there are more cuts to food stamp benefits while crop insurance is further enriched for wealthy agribusiness.

The time to start is now to avoid another congressional grab bag that cheats the American farmers.

Also, thank you, Trudi, for your years of dedicated service to Congress and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, while I deeply respect my friend and colleague from Oregon, I have a slightly different perspective on this because I think the bill that is before us today is absolutely the least that could be done to get the bill passed. It has a number of items I do support, like specialty crops, which I have been working on for some time. I am pleased that organics have an opportunity to get to crop insurance.

But this bill, as I say, takes, allegedly, the savings from direct payments that have been opposed for years and plows them back into an enriched crop insurance program. It cuts $6 billion for conservation. Yes, there are some improvements in terms of administration, but at the end of the day, it cuts $6 billion when land and water is under pressure and needs it the most. This is shortsighted.

It is very likely going to cost a lot more in the long run for the reasons my friend from Wisconsin pointed out in terms of setting these targets higher. It is more generous in terms of rejecting a provision that was included in both the House and the Senate version to limit payments to individual farms to $50,000. The conference committee increases the limit to $125,000 and reopens a loophole closed in both the House and Senate bills, allowing the payments to be collected by multiple people.

It is just one more example of where the conference committee that I think had one meeting and sort of massaged these things to put the pieces together to secure a majority on the floor, is not, in any stretch of the imagination, in the best interests of most farmers, certainly not for the environment, and nor is it for the American taxpayers.

I respectfully urge its rejection.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H.R. 3547, which will fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. The bill is imperfect, but it finally rolls back parts of the senseless sequester, and improves the Murray-Ryan budget deal that I've referred to as a D+ piece of legislation.

While this bill is a far cry from regular order, it moves us away from the harmful cycle of governing in the midst of one manufactured crisis after another. Undoing the harmful and indiscriminate cuts for programs like Head Start and a modest increase for the National Institutes of Health is the least we can do.

One of several bright spots is the strong funding to increase access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene for the world's poorest. This is an effort that I've been a part of for over a decade, and this bill will enable the U.S. to save and improve the lives of thousands of men, women and children.

Even with the positives, this bill continues to underfund America and fails to help those still reeling from the economic downturn. There is much for Congress still to do. It's disappointing that this package doesn't restore unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed while at the same time providing lavish funding for nuclear weapons that we won't use or need. We must invest in our nation's infrastructure to create jobs and support economic growth.

I will continue to work towards a broader effort in Congress to secure real change, and to rebuild and renew America.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed legislation to weaken and fragment the already underfunded federal Superfund program. This was a step in the wrong direction. Today, joined by 15 original cosponsors, I am reintroducing legislation to reauthorize Superfund taxes on polluting industries; provide more funds to clean up toxic waste sites; and relieve much of the funding burden currently shouldered by taxpayers through general revenue funds.

Across the country there are 1,321 severely polluted superfund sites, some federal and some private. These sites threaten humans with exposure to toxics such as arsenic, benzene, PCBs, mercury and a wide range of solvents, resulting in health problems such as infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia and respiratory difficulties.

Passed by Congress in 1980, the Superfund program has resulted in the cleanup of more than 1,000 toxic waste sites in communities all over the U.S., freeing residents from health risks and fears that come from living close to toxic waste. In the majority of cases, EPA works with the parties who have been found responsible for the pollution and they pay for the cleanup. However, at some sites, those responsible for the pollution cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, and the government pays for the cleanup. Historically, the Superfund trust fund was used for this process, which was supported by taxes on petroleum products and chemicals. Because Congress has not reauthorized these Superfund taxes since 1995, the trust fund was depleted and the funding source for the cleanup of orphan sites has shifted primarily to general funds.

The Superfund Reinvestment Act will reinstate Superfund taxes to their previous levels, including excise taxes of $.097 per barrel on crude oil or refined oil products, excise taxes of $.22 to $4.87 per ton on certain chemicals, and a corporate environmental income tax of .12 percent on a corporation's modified alternative minimum taxable income that exceeds $2 million. This legislation also includes language to guarantee that money from the Trust Fund is only spent on Superfund cleanups.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program by ensuring that polluters continue to pay. This will go a long way towards cleaning up America's most toxic waste sites, and helping to keep our communities and our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, no sooner had the United States recognized the failure of alcohol prohibition by repealing the 18th Amendment than the United States embarked upon another failed experiment in prohibition: marijuana. For three-quarters of a century, the United States has waged a futile attempt to prohibit marijuana based upon emotion and flawed science.

Since 1971, the Federal Government has classified marijuana as a schedule 1 prohibited substance, like heroin, more dangerous, according to the law, than cocaine or meth. It declared in statute, contrary to proven research, that marijuana has no therapeutic value.

Every day a million authorized users of medical marijuana reject that notion by using it by doctor's prescription to relieve symptoms like intense nausea due to chemotherapy, relief for veterans with PTSD, from chronic back pain, and neurological disorders like multiple sclerosis.

New York has now joined 21 other States and the District of Columbia authorizing medical marijuana. Colorado is now allowing adult use; and Washington State is soon to follow, after strong approval by both States' voters.

The revolution in medical marijuana policy has been led at the State level, usually as a result of popular vote. The facts are that marijuana does have therapeutic use.

It is also less destructive to human health than alcohol or tobacco. Not one death has ever been proven from a marijuana overdose; yet we continue to disrupt the lives of more than two-thirds of a million people arrested for possession each year.

We send billions of dollars to the hands of underworld and drug cartels. Many people know that it is easier for a 13-year-old girl to buy a joint than a six pack of beer.

No marijuana seller, except in Colorado, checks ID or has a license to lose. Even though White kids use marijuana more than teenagers of color, African Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested and jailed.

Our Federal laws are frozen in time, but the American public has moved on. Majorities now say it should be legal, and even more say the Federal Government should not interfere with whatever State laws are in place.

It will be a while before Congress summons the courage to end the hypocrisy and irrationality of the futile Federal prohibition, but it should stop making things worse. For instance, it is insane to force hundreds of legal marijuana businesses to be all cash. We should end the grotesque punitive federal taxation for these legal small businesses.

It should explicitly allow State-approved medical marijuana. While we are at it, we should allow the cultivation of industrial hemp, which a dozen States have already approved. Hemp products are perfectly legal in the United States. Why shouldn't our farmers be able to grow the raw material like they used to?

Several dozen Members have cosponsored bipartisan legislation to help bring us out of these dark ages. These should be approved without delay. Sometime in this decade we will tax and regulate marijuana. Until we end the unfair discriminatory and costly Federal prohibition, we should at least end the most foolish and counterproductive policies.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a new year, and a new session. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and we should find a way to move past this empty, meaningless bickering.

I will vote against H.R. 3811 because this bill is a diversion tactic by the Republicans, designed to scare Americans away from obtaining affordable health coverage and further undermines confidence in Government.

This bill serves no useful purpose. The mere fact that this bill is only directed at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and no other agency that handles personally identifiable information, demonstrates that Republicans are only attacking the Affordable Care Act for political purposes; not to make it work better to give Americans the health care they are entitled to under the law.

Not only is this bill a waste of time, but it detracts from the real work we need to do to strengthen our health care system. If my colleagues were serious about improving the Affordable Care Act, we'd welcome that discussion, but to date the only interest they have is frightening Americans away from a law that would provide the affordable, accessible health coverage to those who need it most.

Just this week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that the increase in overall health care costs for the last four years is the lowest we've ever recorded in part as a result of the reforms taking place. We should be focused how to build on and take advantage of that trend, for example repealing the flawed and burdensome Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) and avoid the ordeal we subject the health care community to every year.

Please let's stop this senseless exercise in futility and work together for a more productive 2014 and effectively provide the healthcare Americans are entitled to under the Law.

Mr. Speaker, our interim agreement with Iran gives us an opportunity to unwind seemingly intractable, interrelated conflicts throughout the Middle East.

There is no reason for Congress to complicate by further enhancing sanctions now that are already working. We have this 6 months to a year window to fashion a longer-term agreement. The fact that we are even talking with Iran is the most encouraging signal that we have seen in 34 years. Let's use this diplomatic window. There are hard-liners in both countries, highly suspicious, very negative, who would like to blow this agreement up.

Unless we are willing to invade and occupy Iran, even repeated bombing will delay the Iranian nuclear effort by, at best, 4 or 5 years, maybe less.

Americans have spent a trillion dollars, lost 4,000 American lives, with tens of thousands of wounded, in more than a decade in Iraq, and the country is still falling apart. Iran is bigger, stronger, and more sophisticated. I don't think you can sell that war to the American people.

Congress should calm down and give diplomacy a chance. Let's learn about this important country, its 4,000-year history, and our past mistakes with Iran, and most important, our common interest.

The Middle East has long been a simmering cauldron, with a conflict suppressed by a lid of repression held down by empire and colonial powers. That started to change a century ago with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and colonial powers trying from afar to influence human behavior by drawing lines on maps from European capitals, irrespective of religious, tribal, or ethnic realities. It set in motion a series of forces that are playing out today with tragic consequences.

Iran as the dominant Shi'a force in the region could play a huge role where we share common interest, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for instance.

The current situation is a result of partnerships between Congress and the Obama administration that got us to this point where Iran is willing to negotiate. Strong, effective sanctions would never have worked without careful, artful diplomacy that involved other countries like India to help us squeeze Iran. It has worked. Let's claim credit and move on to the next steps.

We could start by trying to learn about each other. Let's promote an exchange between Iran and the United States with students, religious leaders, maybe even parliamentary members and Members of Congress. Let's focus on our shared interest, like Afghanistan, where we had earlier cooperation with Iran to help overthrow the Taliban. Let's work to make progress with the agreement and beyond.

The Congress can do this most importantly by leaving it alone. Congress shouldn't meddle, Congress shouldn't muddle, Congress shouldn't give the Iranian hard-liners who don't want any agreement at all an excuse to scuttle it.

We have an opportunity to improve the most volatile region in the world and Congress shouldn't blow that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and leadership here on the floor.

When I first heard that we were going to be dealing with Superfund reforms and modifications, I was originally encouraged. I have been working with these issues on the Federal level, and before that, for almost 20 years, as a local official dealing with the problems of pollution in Superfund sites. I know that there are many challenges to the

process and that it is chronically and dramatically underfunded. It is complex and cumbersome. Many of the participants are not fully equipped to be able to manage it. We have learned a little bit in the almost 30 years since the legislation was passed, but I am sad to say I was very disappointed because, rather than dealing in a thoughtful, bipartisan way to try and refine the process, we are actually taking a step backward.

This bill would water down the requirements and provide fewer dollars, blurring lines of responsibility. This is not going to help. The Superfund tax expired in 1995. Since then, we have been shifting the burden away from the petrochemical industry that created these problems in the main, shifting it to the general fund taxpayer, a scarce and dwindling supply.

This isn't going to move away from litigation; it is going to make it more likely, if it were enacted, by confusing people. Changing the rules that people have operated under is not going to be helpful; it is going to slow it down further.

I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense has not fully met its obligation as the largest generator of Superfund sites in the United States. I have been on this floor repeatedly attempting to work through the budget process and the authorization process for us to step up and do right by people.

I have got a harbor that was the staging area for three wars, and a significant amount of the pollution there that we are dealing with is as a result of that Defense Department operation. But what we are doing here would, according to the Department of Defense, disrupt the national priority scheme in which the most contaminated Federal sites are cleaned up first. It would increase litigation, delay cleanup, and waste already limited resources.

Now, by pretending that somehow the State government is going to take the lead and compel Federal agencies to do things that may in fact be contrary to Federal law is not going to speed this process further. It is not going to make it easier. It is going to continue what is the problem. People today dig in their heels.

We haven't actually moved forward to try to work carefully, to thoughtfully, in a bipartisan session, refine it. We are going ahead and trying to superimpose on top of it things that will undercut that effort.

Now, I am critical of what the Federal Government has done in some areas, but as a practical matter, local governments, by failure to zone, plan, regulate, and exercise oversight, have often been responsible for many of these problems. And they have, in the main, not stepped up and been aggressive with the strictest of standards. This would superimpose what are potentially less rigorous or, in fact, no local standards, be able to cost shift to the Federal Government without any interest in providing the resources for the Federal Government to do so.

I would hope that our friends, if they are sincere, would spend time with people who are in the trenches and look for ways in a bipartisan, thoughtful way to refine the Superfund program so that, in the spirit of what originally created the legislation, we can do something that will do better by our constituents, better by the environment, and better by the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the legislative agenda for this week was going to deal with the beleaguered Superfund program, I was encouraged; but when I saw what my Republican colleagues actually proposed, I was saddened and disappointed.

Across America, we are plagued by a variety of severely polluted hotspots known as ``Superfund sites.'' Many are the legacy of past reckless or clueless business behaviors; Government, itself, shares responsibility as well. Local governments failed to properly zone and regulate businesses with toxic byproducts. Sometimes government created problems with the way it operated sewer systems, solid waste management, and military operations.

The Superfund law, created in 1980, with a Superfund tax on the petrochemical industry, which caused the problem, would provide cleanup funding. It was reasonable at that time, but it has been frozen in place for almost 20 years. In 1995, the excise tax expired. Neither the program nor the problems have gone away, and having fewer and fewer resources has not helped. Sadly, the proposals the House will be considering this week would actually reduce the overall amount of funding that is available, undercut standards, and slow cleanup.

The Federal Government has created some of these problems, mostly caused by military operations, which is the largest single source of Superfund sites in the country, but there are also situations like the TVA and its coal ash disaster.

Instead of enhancing the Federal commitment and capacity, this legislative exercise is an illustration of part of the problem. It is an attempt to look like we are doing something, but it has no chance of being enacted into law; and if it did, it would actually make the problem worse.

It is time for us to renew and refine the Federal commitment, not to complicate and undercut it. We should take a performance-based approach to zero in on what will actually accelerate cleanup in a demonstrable fashion and be able to move away from what has too often been a pro forma response.

The Federal Government should, indeed, clean up after itself and not leave the problem behind. The military should place Superfund cleanup as a higher priority in its budgeting. We have seen recent studies about pollution around military bases, like Camp Lejeune, that has had a severe impact on military families and their neighbors, linking contamination to a series of birth defects like spina bifida and to childhood cancers, including leukemia.

We should renew the Superfund tax, which I will be introducing in legislation this month. The Federal budget allocations should commit to cleanup, not passing the buck. We have settled into a program of sue, stall, and study as the inevitable result of a failure to work together to clean up, to protect the public, and to save money in the long run. I hope we will reject the Republican proposal this week and, instead, make a renewed commitment to find ways to make it work better.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, also known as the Green 301 Act. Green 301 expands the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to encompass environmental effects. It provides tools to help prevent practices by other countries that cause negative environmental impacts to human, animal, or plant life or health, or to prevent the conservation of exhaustible natural resources domestically or internationally.

The United States has helped to create the largest trade network the world has ever seen. As we leverage our commercial influence in the global economy, we can also ensure the countries we are doing business with are adhering to basic environmental standards.

Green 301 would allow the U.S. government to impose penalties, including the increase of tariffs, on countries that: fail to effectively enforce the environmental laws of a foreign country; waived or otherwise derogated from the environmental laws of a foreign country or weakened the protections afforded by such laws; fail to provide for judicial or administrative proceedings giving access to remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country; fail to provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country; or fail to effectively enforce environmental commitments in agreements to which a foreign country and the United States are a Party.

The promise of an open, mutually beneficial trade relationship with the U.S. is both a carrot and a stick. Green 301 lets our trade partners know that, not only does the United States expect our partners to adhere to environmental agreements, but now there could be serious economic penalties for countries that don't hold up their end of the bargain.

My support for international trade agreements has always been predicated on the notion that agreements establish a fair, rules-based trading regime. The economy of my state is heavily trade-dependent. Oregon's iconic brands would not exist without strong international trading relationships. Oregon's largest private employer, Intel, is a product of the international market for high-tech products.

Oregon and other states are greatly disadvantaged when our trading partners derogate from their environmental laws, which provide them with an unfair advantage and undercuts U.S. companies, which operate under our own strong environmental protections. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that trade remains free and open, but, in incorporating environmental and labor protections, also meets basic expectations of fairness.

Mr. Speaker, victories on the field are much sweeter when achieved by a team, dedicated in unity to achieving its goals. This week the Central Catholic Rams won the OSAA Class 6A Championship, defeating their archrival Jesuit 38-28. It was a fitting end to a 14-0 season and showed what can be done with teamwork and effort.

In a truly dominant year, both during the regular season and playoffs, the young men of Central Catholic, their coaches, and their supporters inspired their fellow students and the community through their exemplary actions on and off the field. This is a season that can inspire great pride as the 2013 Rams join the 1952 and 1953 championship teams in the halls of glory.

Go Rams!

Madam Speaker, last week I was proud to stand with representatives of the U.S. Chamber, the AFL-CIO, contractors, local government, transit, truckers, AAA, engineers, and environmentalists, all supporting my legislation, H.R. 3636, to update the gas tax.

It inspired the predictable firestorm. There was a rant from a shouting head on Fox who thought not only did we not need transportation money, but

thought that the previous money had somehow disappeared. Even the people who supported the gas tax said it was a horrible idea, like the article in Slate saying it is the best least-popular idea in politics. It provoked a torrent of reaction--some laudatory, some inflammatory. But it boiled down to basically three major points:

Where did this idea come from?

Well, it came from my decades of work in transportation, studying, listening to people from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon; North Carolina to Seattle to California. It was 10 years of experience that I had directing the transportation functions at the city of Portland as the Commissioner of Public Works where I saw firsthand the impact of poor and declining infrastructure. It is every single major independent study that says we need more money for transportation, not less, and it is a disaster that we are poised to slash transportation funding October 1 unless something happens.

The question was asked: Isn't this unfair to lower-income Americans?

Well, actually no. Lower-income Americans stand to benefit the most, people who are at the mercy of oil companies and foreign producers who don't know how much they will pay for gasoline next week, whether it is $3.35 as it was when I left Portland earlier this week, or $4.25. That is why they think the gas tax goes up every year, but it hasn't increased since 1993.

Lower-income people are more transportation dependent. They work, in the main, by the hour. A traffic delay or deteriorating transit hits them harder because they have fewer choices. Terrible road conditions costs them money as it wastes fuel, it damages tires, and shakes their cars out of alignment. And lower-income people stand to benefit from the hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs that will be created.

Well, my favorite question is: If this is so unpopular and such a remote possibility, why even bother?

Well, it is remote, but it is not impossible. Look at the user-fee increase that Ronald Reagan could sign, a nickel a gallon in 1982. We need leadership today if we are going to meet serious transportation challenges and help jump-start our economy. It may sound quaint, but I think leadership is not what you do when an idea is popular. Leadership is what you do when it is needed.

I hope Congress will lead on transportation funding.

Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the rumored sanctions legislation dealing with Iran may not reach the floor this week. This would be good news.

It is imperative that we take this optimistic development that gives us a chance for a diplomatic resolution of the differences with Iran and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons to come to fruition. We must not give excuses to Iranian hardliners who hate America a reason to walk away. We don't want to confuse our allies, who we rely upon to make sanctions work, about our intentions.

It is imperative that we move forward aggressively, thoughtfully, to make the most out of this 6 months, using diplomacy to make sure that the majority of Iranians who recently voted for a change in direction with a relative moderate as President are reinforced.

This is a unique moment in history. I am pleased that it looks like the House might not screw it up.

Mr. Speaker, in the rush to wrap up and go home, there is too much unfinished business, including leaving 2.15 million long-term unemployed in the lurch.

But one item should not be on the agenda: an attempt to undermine the diplomatic breakthrough with Iran, the most encouraging development with that country in 34 years. We would give the hardliners in Iran who really hate the preliminary agreement an excuse to walk away. It would be a continuation of 60 years of mismanagement by the United States with our relationship with that proud nation with deep ties to America.

The worst thing we did was team with the British to overthrow their democratically elected government in 1953 and replace most of that with the Shah, who for 25 years, was a repressive dictator.

Few remember, if they ever knew, that the Iranians helped stabilize Afghanistan after we drove the Taliban from power. They don't know that the people in Tehran had candlelight vigils in sympathy to the United States after 9/11 where some of the supposed allies of the United States were celebrating our loss in the streets. For that, the Iranians were rewarded with the label of being part of the Axis of Evil.

We must make diplomacy the key. We are not going to be able to bomb away the knowledge of how to develop nuclear weapons. Experts I have talked to say they could have made a nuclear bomb years ago if they had really been bent on that creation.

Torpedoing the agreement will be counterproductive. It risks collapse of sanctions which depend on the Chinese, the Indians, and the Japanese not buying Iranian oil. If we appear unreasonable, we lose international support, and we can lose ground.

It would undercut President Hassan Rouhani, elected by the Iranians who want change and a more moderate approach to the world. Iranians-- people who have been there and testify--actually like Americans. They don't much like the repressive government. But that support can help reach more than just a nuclear deal.

Iran is key to solving the nightmare that is Syria, prying them back from supporting the insurgents in support for a long-term solution. Iran is key to holding Iraq together and not having it spin off into civil war and to defeat or at least contain the Taliban resurgents in Afghanistan.

A recent poll showed 57 percent of the American public supports the agreement. When they are given greater detail about what it entails, that support increases to 63 percent.

Don't undercut the best chance to reorder the Middle East in a third of a century. I think we ought to give diplomacy a chance to succeed for a change.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, as a step in the right direction to address the growing and serious issue of abusive patent lawsuits or ``patent trolling.''

We need to be careful that certain provisions of this legislation do not have unintended consequences for legitimate patent holders, especially institutions of higher education. It is encouraging that the administration's support includes a commitment to help refine this legislation. I look forward to participating in that effort.