Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been in Congress, both parties and two successive administrations have danced around the issue of our infrastructure deficit. For all the attention to the various fiscal cliffs, the looming infrastructure deficit is every bit as critical.

For two centuries, infrastructure was a bipartisan issue, from Lincoln, with the transcontinental railroad, to Democrats and Republicans coming together to launch the interstate freeway system signed into law by President Eisenhower. Subsequent road, transit and water investments helped fuel our economy and tie the Nation together.

More recently, the failure to address long-term funding has also been bipartisan. The Bush administration ignored strong recommendations from their own private sector experts that they empanelled to give advice.

Although the Obama administration did request and employ some modest funding in the Recovery Act and has proposed an infrastructure bank and talked extensively and, I think, sincerely about the need for investment, what has been lacking has been a specific, concrete proposal from either party to address infrastructure financing in America.

While the political maneuvering has occurred here in Washington, the gap in the highway trust fund has been growing, and conditions of our roads, bridges, and transit systems have been deteriorating. This puts America at a competitive disadvantage, complicates the movement of goods and people, and contributes to congestion and pollution.

At the same time the needs grow, the resources are in significant decline. The gas tax has not been increased since the Clinton administration 20 years ago. The future prospects are even worse. Demands are increasing and deferred maintenance takes its toll while we watch the bottom fall out of the highway trust fund.

We have seen a slowdown in revenue due to the near collapse of the economy, a shift in driving patterns while people, especially young people, drive less, and, of course there is improved fuel efficiency. It is scheduled to further reduce gas consumption dramatically with improved mileage for conventional vehicles, to say nothing of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles.

It is time for Congress to act. We have seen our partners at the State level increase transportation funding in 13 States, but they need Congress to act to maintain that partnership.

There is a large coalition that stands ready to support Congress. U.S. chamber, the national AFL-CIO, building trades, trucking industry, numerous associations of small and medium businesses, local chambers of commerce, local government, professional organizations, bicyclists, the coalition is broad and persuasive requesting Congress to tax them.

Any resources would have a powerful effect on the economy. The relatively small amount in the Recovery Act for infrastructure created many jobs because there is a strong multiplier effect, about 36,000 jobs for each billion dollars invested. And these are family-wage jobs all across America that aren't going to be outsourced overseas.

In less than a year, the transportation bill expires, and absent congressional action, we face a precipitous drop in transportation funding next year and a reduction of 30 percent overall for the next decade.

It doesn't need to be this way. I am proposing we implement the three-step, 15-cent-per-gallon tax increase that was part of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal. Communities and industry need certainty, especially for larger projects that are multistate and multiyear.

And this should be the last Federal gas tax increase. Over the next 10 years, we need to replace funding for transportation that is based on gallons of fuel consumed, which is going to be declining, with something more sustainable, a reasonable adjustment now and a permanent fix in the future, so we can stop this dance of avoidance.

We will find broad support for this form of user fee, which, historically, has been acceptable to Republicans as well, including Ronald Reagan, who increased the gas tax a nickel a gallon back when that was real money in 1982, and he established the mass transit trust fund account.

Let's address the infrastructure deficit, stabilizing transportation funding, and help revitalize and enhance America's all-too-slow economic recovery. The time is now.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing two pieces of legislation to address America's infrastructure deficit and put Americans back to work renewing and rebuilding the country. For the past decade, it has been clear that our transportation funding mechanism is broken, and Republicans and Democrats alike danced around the critical issue of how to fund our nation's infrastructure. During this time, Congress transferred more than $50 billion of general fund money to the Highway Trust Fund in an effort to keep the Highway Trust Fund alive, but did nothing to solve the long-term problem.

In the past infrastructure funding was a bipartisan issue. Whether it was Democrats and Republicans coming together to launch the interstate freeway system signed into law by President Eisenhower or the subsequent road, transit, and water investments that fueled economic development and tied the nation together, a spirit of forward-thinking cooperation dominated. The recent failure to address our long-term funding problem has also been bipartisan. Despite strong recommendations from private-sector commissions created during the Bush Administration, the forward momentum of the past has been stopped dead in its tracks.

The gap between Highway Trust Fund assets and our nation's future needs is growing as the condition of our roads, bridges, and transit systems continues to deteriorate. There is no question about the importance of our nation's infrastructure to the general economy. America's roads, bridges, and rail lines move goods valued at more than $11 trillion a year. The failure to make adequate transportation investments puts America at a competitive disadvantage internationally, it complicates movement of goods and people, and it contributes to congestion and pollution. In fact, the American Society for Civil Engineers estimates that if we fail to increase funding in our nation's infrastructure, our transportation failures will restrict our national GDP growth by $897 billion by 2020. To avoid these outcomes, blue ribbon policy commissions have suggested increasing investment in infrastructure from between $20 billion to $40 billion per year.

Unfortunately, Congress has not increased the gas tax since the Clinton deficit-reduction program in 1993. Today, with inflation and increased fuel efficiency for vehicles, the average motorist is paying about half as much per mile as they did then. In this situation, the Highway Trust Fund will require $15 billion a year to maintain current spending levels. In less than a year, absent Congressional action, we face a precipitous drop in transportation funding--eventually totaling a 30 percent reduction in 10 years. Increased fuel efficiency exacerbates that deficit even more over time.

There is a broad and persuasive coalition that recognizes the importance of an increased investment in our infrastructure. From the Chamber of Commerce, to the AFL-CIO, the American Trucking Association, the Sierra Club, and the League of American Bicyclists, individuals, businesses, and associations across the spectrum are ready to invest in America's infrastructure. Today, I am putting forward a vision for how Congress should go about renewing and rebuilding the country.

My first piece of legislation, the Update, Promote, and Develop America's Transportation Essentials (UPDATE) Act, will phase in a fifteen cent per gallon gas tax increase, similar to what was called for in the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal of three years ago. It is adjusted for inflation so that we're not back into the same situation in a few years, and acknowledges the long-term inadequacy of the gas tax by clarifying that this should be the last gas tax increase. The UPDATE Act would raise around $170 billion over ten years.

This would have a powerful effect on the economy. The relatively small amount infrastructure investment in the Recovery Act had a significant impact on employment, creating almost 36,000 jobs for each billion invested. These are family wage jobs in every community across America.

Instituting a reasonable gas tax increase now stops the dance of avoidance. It will provide the revenues Democrats say they want in the form of a user fee which historically has been acceptable to Republicans including Ronald Reagan, who increased the gas tax by a nickel a gallon in 1982 (the equivalent of raising it by $0.12 a gallon in today's dollars). As we extend the gas tax, we must also think about how to replace it with something more sustainable. The best candidate would be the vehicle mile traveled fee being explored by pilot projects in Oregon and implemented there on a voluntary basis next year. My second piece of legislation provides research funding for larger-scale pilot projects to answer remaining questions about how best to implement a vehicle miles traveled system, appropriate revenue collection mechanisms, and other potential applications for such a system. This bill looks to the future and helps provide a more stable funding base for the next one hundred years.

Addressing the infrastructure deficit, stabilizing transportation funding, and helping America's all-too-slow economic recovery, is critical if we want a livable and economically prosperous country in the years to come. All we need to make it happen is a commitment to build the future together.

Mr. Speaker, Congress returns for the final days of this year's session facing the same conundrum: people here and back home are divided over the direction of our government; they don't agree on how to fund what a growing and aging America needs.

A year ago, we were engaged in a vigorous debate on taxation. More recently, we survived the controversy surrounding the government shutdown, and we still are at loggerheads.

There are strong feelings by some that now is not the time to raise taxes, yet the spending levels enshrined in the House budget cannot produce spending bills from the Appropriations Committee that can actually pass on the House floor. In some cases, they appear to not even be able to pass from subcommittee. All the while, we are looking at a sea of unmet needs and face a floundering economy.

There is one area that can help break the logjam. It won't solve all of our problems certainly, but it will help us significantly along the way. Congress should address the critical needs of our Nation's infrastructure deficit. Roads, bridges, transit systems are all increasingly at risk. We are facing an inadequate state of repair, construction of new facilities are on hold, and we are losing ground in meeting our own needs, let alone the challenges of global competition. Yet this challenge is an opportunity for some potential progress. We know what to do to meet this challenge. We can write a new transportation bill that will meet today's needs; it just needs more money.

There is a vast coalition that supports additional resources for infrastructure. The so-called ``special interests'' that are so often at odds are remarkably aligned when it comes time to recognize and fix this problem. Business, labor, professional groups, local government, environmentalists, truckers, bicyclists all agree.

The paralysis that surrounds questions of raising taxes does not necessarily need to apply in this case. Ronald Reagan, after all, was willing to sign into law a 5 cent gasoline tax increase 31 years ago when a nickel a gallon was real money. A user fee is, in fact, a different category from a general tax increase. The various groups that score such votes treat user fees differently.

As we are attempting to resolve budget differences, there is an opportunity to embrace more transportation resources through user fee mechanisms that will have broad national support and not inspire the same fierce philosophical debate that has plagued and paralyzed our deliberations for years. It has the added benefit of being the fastest way to put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs to help boost our flagging economy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take a step back and look at this as a way to crack the code, to meet vast unmet needs of our constituents and stabilize a critical part of our budget. Who knows, if we can find a way to thread this particular transportation funding needle, how many additional opportunities to solve problems going forward can we then address?

I think what it takes is simply some vision and some courage. That is why people sent us here in the first place. Congress should act, demonstrating the leadership to avoid the worsening infrastructure deficit, put people to work, make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

I deeply appreciate the gentleman from California yielding time to me, and I appreciate his leadership in focusing on where the economy is and where it needs to go.

I think it is important to look back in time because you are absolutely right, that from the founding of the Republic, infrastructure loomed large. In the Constitution, there is a provision for postal roads. And 8 years after the plan that was developed by Alexander Hamilton for President Washington, there was the Gallatin plan that was developed for President Jefferson by his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin. It had a vision for what would happen for that next American century.

Throughout that time, infrastructure has been one thing that has brought Americans together. It is something that really didn't have a partisan tinge. Yes, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican President, actually, on the anniversary, the centennial of the Gallatin plan, had his own vision for what we would do with inland waterways and reforestation, redeveloping America. His cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, likewise helped plant the seeds that ultimately grew into the Interstate Freeway Act, signed into law and funded by President Eisenhower. And 150 years ago, there was the Transcontinental Railroad Act with a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

This infrastructure agenda is something that has made America great. It produced the finest infrastructure in the world. Until the last quarter century, America had the best airlines, roads, freeways, bridges, passenger and freight rail systems anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, we have not kept pace with our responsibility. We have not raised the gas tax for the last 20 years. That was part of the Clinton

plan in 1993 that helped kick off an unparalleled 8 years of economic prosperity.

We face a situation now where the bottom is about to fall out of transportation funding. We have not heeded the call of other bipartisan commissions for Republican and Democratic Presidents alike to provide the transportation resources that would enable us to have a robust reauthorization of the transportation bill. In fact, the best the last Congress could do was a short-term 27-month extension that was kind of kept together by chewing gum and bailing wire, and that funding runs out in less than 10 months. What that means is that, by October 1 next year, transportation funding for roads will drop 92 percent if we just rely on the cash flow that goes into the depleted highway trust fund. Transit funding is eliminated. Over the course of the next 10 years, we will see a 30 percent reduction in already inadequate funding for the Federal partnership.

We kept this afloat by transferring $55 billion of general fund borrowed money. We were able to get a little bit of infrastructure in the Recovery Act. And the last Congress did a little budget magic in terms of changing some provisions for pension funds that resulted in an uptick in general fund revenue that we used, transferred, to sort of get us through the next 10 months. But it is not adequate. It is not the signal the private sector needs. It is not the signal that our partners in State and local government need to be able to undertake the significant projects that will make a difference.

If we really care about putting people to work, the fastest way to create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs is to adequately fund our infrastructure, family-wage jobs in every State in the Union that will start in a matter of months.

If we care about American competitiveness, we will invest in infrastructure so that we can compete with the developments that are taking place around the world. If we care about the health of our communities, we will invest to deal with problems of deteriorating roads and bridges, problems of fraying infrastructure, inadequate transit, not having safe conditions for our children to bike and walk safely to school.

While the discussion takes place about the budget deficit and this fiscal cliff or another, I think it is time that we ought to look at the infrastructure deficit and the transportation cliff that we face in less than 10 months. Tomorrow, I will be introducing some legislation, and I am pleased that I will be joined by leaders from labor, the Chamber of Commerce, construction, the professions of engineering, local government, a wide array of people who are willing to step up and join Congress to try and more realistically solve this problem.

I can't say how much, Mr. Garamendi, I appreciate your tireless advocacy for rebuilding and renewing America, for dealing with manufacturing here, for putting Americans back to work at a time of, sadly, too persistent long-term unemployment, and particularly in the building and construction trades and with regard to architects and engineers where we have seen people just literally decimated. I appreciate your strong voice and advocacy and look forward to working with you as we go forward, hopefully, in this Congress, that we don't dodge our responsibility any further.

If we rely simply on current cash flow in the next fiscal year, we will see a 92 percent reduction in highway funding, and the transit budget will be zeroed out. And over the next 10 years, with the current revenue level, we will see a 30 percent reduction below the current inadequate levels.

We do not have a current revenue stream that is adequate for rail modernization. Simple. We had some additional money, again, in the Recovery Act. Although modest by international standards, it was a significant shot in the arm; but as you pointed out, that is running out.

What is interesting is that I had an opportunity, a few years ago on a trip to China, to ride their high-speed trains. In 2009, there were no high-speed trains in China. Next year, they will carry more passenger traffic than the entire American aviation system.

This can be done. Other countries are doing it. I was referring here just to the surface transportation fees, but there are certainly needs for rail modernization and safety. And, frankly, what is underground is in worse condition than what we see on the surface. We leak more water in America than we drink. Every day, it is the equivalent of 6 billion gallons of water, enough to fill Olympic-sized swimming pools, 9,000 of them, from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh.

I deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to share a few minutes with you on the floor this evening. I deeply appreciate your unstinting advocacy for making it in America, for doing it right, putting our families back to work, strengthening the economy, and making our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically sound.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more essential to quality of life, to the health of our families and of our communities than water. Water, at its most basic level, is life. Safe drinking water and basic sanitation make the difference between health and sickness, between a family thriving or struggling just to exist.

Water quality and quantity are serious issues in communities across the country, especially now, when changing weather patterns, extreme drought, continued growth combine to put an even greater demand on our aging, inadequate infrastructure. To ease these pressures, I am introducing the Water Trust Fund Act, which would establish a trust fund to help local communities meet their water infrastructure needs.

Over a thousand communities across the country are struggling with combined sewer overflows as well as inadequate and aging sewer pipes. Small communities in particular, which already face huge questions of water supply and quality, have few resources with which to pay the bills and are seeing sky-high monthly costs for consumers.

The Water Trust Fund Act creates a deficit-neutral, consistent, and firewalled trust fund to help states replace, repair, and rehabilitate critical wastewater treatment facilities. It will be financed by voluntary fees from companies that participate, in exchange for the use of advertising materials indicating their support for America's water systems.

We face unprecedented challenges to our water infrastructure. More and more products are designed to be flushed down toilets and drains, placing them in systems that are already stressed. Pharmaceutical residues are showing up in treated wastewater and because they are difficult to treat, I'm afraid we are slowly medicating vast numbers of Americans against their will. Aging water systems--some still made out of brick or wood, some dating from the century before last--mean that America also faces old-fashioned system reliability issues. Unpredictable weather means that water systems are dealing more frequently with sewage overflow, flooding, and overwhelmed systems. Reports indicate that each year an average of six billion gallons of drinking water leaks from these inadequate and ancient pipes. Six billion gallons is enough to fill 6,000 Olympic sized swimming pools-- if lined up, these pools would stretch from Washington, D.C. to Pittsburgh, PA.

These aging and outdated systems are not just a local problem, relevant only to a single neighborhood, city, county, or even state. Water does not obey county boundaries or even state lines, and it is a resource on which we all rely. The federal government should help fill the funding gaps that local communities and states cannot. The opportunity is now: There is significant state and local investment, interest rates are low, and the Water Trust Fund will help leverage billions of additional dollars to repair our aging infrastructure.

The American public is already paying a disproportionate share of the costs of water infrastructure. Residential households have the least capacity to absorb additional costs during these difficult times, and they already face wildly escalating costs to deal with problems that they did not create. The voracious water demands of industry far outstrip household needs. Clean water is absolutely essential for these industries and the rest of the business community to function. Water infrastructure upgrades will provide the business community far more in benefits than it would cost, and it could be used to leverage a broader range of investments.

This bill will help communities deal with their water infrastructure needs in a stable, proactive way, and will provide significant benefits for those who rely on our water system, the local government officials charged with making the system work, and the industries who rely on a clean, consistent source of water for their products.

Mr. Speaker, ninety percent of pipeline projects are approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission within twelve months; the other ten percent take longer because they are bigger and more complicated projects. The Natural Gas Pipeline Trade Association said in July 2013 that FERC's existing permitting process is ``generally very good.''

By creating a rushed application process and limiting the ability of other agents to provide commentary to FERC, the H.R. 1900 limits FERC's ability to understand the impacts of a pipeline on a local community, the public's health, our national infrastructure, and our environment. These are serious decisions about our local communities--they deserve thoughtful and comprehensive analysis. H.R. 1900 takes something that is not a problem, and creates one.

I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, in an era of violence in the Middle East, tragedy in Syria, and turmoil in Egypt, there is some very encouraging news surrounding Iran.

The most important signal may have been the election of Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran who is by no means a moderate by anyone's stretch of the imagination except in the context of Iran. He was the choice of the Iranian people for change, for a different path to reduce the collision course with the United States and the crippling sanctions we have imposed. His foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, is an able and experienced diplomat with strong relationships with the people who have dealt with him for years both in the United States and Iran.

I am encouraged by the reports in the news and in the opinion pages which point out something I have long argued on the floor of this House: the convergence of interests between the United States and Iran.

People forget the key role that the United States played in the emergence of the modern state of Iran, of the constitutional revolution beginning in 1905, where American influence was profoundly felt. Unfortunately, for the last 60 years, we have serially mismanaged our relationship with Iran.

How would we have felt if a foreign power worked to overthrow our democratically elected government and install a dictator? That is exactly what the United States and Great Britain did in 1953 and how the Shah returned to power.

It is amazing that the majority of Iranians still has positive feelings towards the United States, which they do. People forget the alignment of interests between the United States and Iran after 9/11 that led them to help us deal with post-Taliban Afghanistan. In the capitals of some of our supposed allies in the Middle East, people were cheering on that tragedy. On 9/11, people in Tehran were standing in solidarity with Americans. This, of course, was before George Bush recklessly included them in his infamous ``axis of evil'' pronouncement. The Iranian people are distinct from the Arabs and are proud of their Persian heritage, stretching back thousands of years.

Iran is an important part of any ultimate solution in stabilizing Iraq and in resolving the Syrian conflict. Yes, they have advanced nuclear development, and we rightly should be deeply concerned with their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That is why one of the Obama administration's greatest foreign policy triumphs has been to marshal support of the world for this stringent, comprehensive regime of sanctions. It has made a huge difference--driving down the value of their currency, depleting their foreign reserves, and creating extreme inflationary pressures on their economy.

Now is the time to see if a solution can be developed. It is decidedly not the time to ratchet up sanctions even further. Nothing would undercut the more moderate forces in Iran, and more pressure could be very counterproductive because we are at risk of sanctions fatigue by our partners. Other countries that do not share our same policy positions and deep hostility towards the Iranians have gone along with sanctions. To expect that countries like China, India, and Russia are going to follow us with even more extreme sanctions and turn their backs on the progress is questionable at best. At worst, it would end up losing support for the sanctions regime we have now, would strengthen the hand of the hard-liners who do hate America, and would set back long-term prospects for peace, not just for Iran, but for Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.

Most experts I have encountered feel Iran could have built a nuclear bomb years ago, but they didn't. Recently, they have slowed the pace of their nuclear activities and have been open to proposals unthinkable a year ago. The rush to undercut the process is shortsighted, counterproductive, and it risks accelerating the development of Iranian nuclear weapons.

Now is the time to accelerate diplomacy, not to walk away. It is decidedly not the time for the United States Congress to throw a monkey wrench in the diplomatic procedures and to ratchet up sanctions. We can always reimpose sanctions, but may not be able to recreate this diplomatic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the concept of a World Toilet Day can make children giggle, some adults blush and others change the subject, but the title is designed to take a most serious subject head-on.

The world can no longer afford to be squeamish, to make jokes or to change the subject about the fundamental issue of access to adequate sanitation. That is because 2.5 billion people live without it, which leads to 700,000 premature deaths each year, and it is getting worse. Instead of solving this global crisis, the number living without access has increased by 700 million people.

Today, we want to renew our commitment to helping these unfortunate people around the world have access to sanitation, which we all take for granted.

I appreciate the Gates Foundation and other NGOs, like WaterAid, for stepping up to help solve the dilemma, and I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 2901, which Congressman Poe and I have introduced, which is the Water for the World Act, so that the United States can play a greater, more effective role to save lives around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a vote I made on Wednesday, October 30, on H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. I mistakenly voted for this legislation, when I intended to vote against it. I have a longstanding record of supporting robust banking regulations that protect taxpayers from risky trading activity. Significantly altering provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act before those reforms have been fully implemented is premature. I wish to clearly state for the record that I did not intend to vote for this legislation, and I look forward to continuing working for strong banking protections for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to Mariam and Omar, to the extended Toulan family, to their Portland State family whose lives have been touched by the service commitment of Nohad and Dirce Moroni Toulan. Indeed, Portlanders who never knew them have benefited from their presence in our community for almost 40 years.

The Toulans were a unique power couple not just in Portland, but with influence around the world. Indeed, they were an international power couple; he from Egypt, she from Argentina. They accepted international assignments, as when he became the first planning director for the greater Cairo region.

He had been an advisor to the United Nations development program and to local and foreign governments. Most significant was his 20-month assignment directing the preparation of the comprehensive regional plan for the holy city of Mecca. They were amazing assignments for an amazing man.

It was my honor to have met him when he first arrived in Portland in 1974. I was working in the president's office at Portland State University then when he began the most critical chapter in the development of Portland State as a true urban university.

It is hard to think of all the ways the Toulans contributed to the evolution of our modest continuing education center for returning veterans to the establishment of a vital, strong, thriving university with particular expertise in urban studies.

Dr. Toulan was a renaissance man: a scholar, planner, and academic leader, a force in the community for human rights, sound foreign policy, and protecting the planet. There is a reason his name graces the School of Planning and Public Policy at Portland State. No one contributed more to the emergence of one of the outstanding academic outposts in America dealing with planning, livability, transportation, and how we knit these elements together for a better future.

Nohad helped define the critical role that an urban university can play not just as a place of instruction, but for research and a living laboratory.

Dirce Moroni Toulan in her own right was an accomplished professional. She didn't just support Nohad through his career, but had a strong academic and professional background and was greatly influential and respected at the university. It is not by accident that her name is on the library for the College of Public Affairs.

I worked directly for two presidents and since worked with four more. Each put their imprint on the university which is still being enhanced further under the stewardship of Wim Wievel and his wife Alice. Yet over the last 40 years, I don't think anybody has done more for the evolution of the university and its role in our community, and in the nation, and in the world.

We mourn the loss of this extraordinary couple even as we celebrate their lives. Portland State University, our community, the nation is a better place because of them.

As I reflect on the sad closing of this brilliant chapter, to focus on the academic and the professional, important as they are is to lose an essential element that has become more important to me over the years, even as the formal phase of their career wound down.

They were a true interfaith couple: a Catholic priest and Muslim Iman were at their memorial last Monday. In an era of such international tension these last dozen years, which have been visited upon our community, theirs were voices of tolerance and compassion. They were vigorously opposed to discrimination, and fierce champions of outreach, of connection, of mutual respect.

For all of the many contributions that will live on in urban affairs and Portland State University, they made a vital contribution to sane foreign policy, religious tolerance, and interfaith cooperation which may not be evidenced like the name of a college or a library. Their message was there when the community needed to hear it and their example when the community needed to see it. We are richer for that gift.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to take a moment to honor an individual who, for the last four years, has been inspiring the next generation of global water activists.

Riverdale High School teacher Laurie LePore began teaching the ``H2O for Life'' course as a way to introduce a service-learning component to her students' education.

At the beginning of each H2O for Life course, students select one or two schools currently lacking a proper, healthy, water source. The class is then divided into five student-led groups, each tasked with their own jobs to do, working together to raise funds for the building of wells, water purification systems, and restrooms for schools in need. Laurie also educates students about water issues in my home state of Oregon, including dam breaching, overfishing, and the impact of bottled water.

This year, her class is assisting two elementary schools in South Africa to raise $5,000 to bring water, sanitation, and hygiene projects and practices to their schools--benefiting a total of 2,086 students. At the end of the year, eight schools from Africa, the Philippines, and India will have first-time access to water and sanitation facilities thanks to the H2O for Life class and Mrs. LePore's dedication.

Bringing water and sanitation into schools is an essential part of having an effective education system. Without adequate sanitation facilities, young girls are embarrassed to attend school and too often stay away as a result. If there isn't water in their place of learning, many children are forced to choose between providing water for themselves and their family or their education. When it's a matter of life and death or learning, school always loses out.

As the lead sponsor of the 2005 ``Water for the Poor Act'' and the current ``Water for the World Act of 2013,'' I applaud local efforts to highlight this ongoing challenge and am deeply appreciative of the impact this program has and will have not only on her students, but for the thousands of children they've helped around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the expectation that somehow the elements of the Affordable Care Act would not be implemented is just simply false. People can keep health insurance, but there are always going to be the new standards to make sure that people no longer have insurance in name only. That is what we heard about repeatedly in the efforts to try to reform the health care system--that people had great health care plans until they got sick. We have minimum standards going forward, and all plans will be required to meet those standards. That was in the law, and that is reasonable.

We are in the midst of the greatest, most significant reform of health care in a generation, and it is already having significant effects. Medical inflation, medical cost inflation is at a 40-year low over the course of the last 3 years. We have significant expansion of coverage already. Hundreds of thousands of people in lower incomes have been able to have access to health care for the first time. Small businesses that have been burdened for years by health care costs now get access to tax credits, and it gets better for them going forward.

It is, I think, ironic for people to talk about somebody losing access to a doctor who is no longer in a network. That happens every year. It happened previously. It will happen in the future unless you are going to somehow sentence doctors to participate in plans. You can't force them.

And shedding crocodile tears because there are some plans that are canceled, in the individual insurance market, routinely 40, 50, 60 percent every year are turned over.

I sat on the floor and heard my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden) talk about a very attractive family from southern Oregon that is somehow going to now face a $12,000 deductible. I want to take a deep dive with Greg and find out what is going on with that family because we have found people have been using ObamaCare for an excuse for some things that are going to happen anyway, or that people misunderstand.

Let's do this together. Let's explore these areas. Let's give people information going forward, and let's make the system work better, not create a parallel system that will make it work worse.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleagues Representative Coble, Representative DeFazio, and Representative McCaul, I am introducing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act. This legislation requires the US DOT to establish separate measures for motorized and non-motorized safety targets with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Under this program, states will set their own safety targets and are given the flexibility to choose the best methods to meet them. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act encourages states to make their roadways safer while acknowledging local needs.

The need for such legislation has never been clearer. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recently reported a 2 percent drop in roadway fatalities, and a 4.6 percent drop for occupants of cars and light trucks between 2010-2011. These safety improvements, however, have not helped all road users. Even as driver and passenger deaths have decreased, the percentage of bicyclist and pedestrian roadway deaths has increased. While overall traffic deaths have decreased, the number of bicyclists dying on our roadways has increased by 9 percent and pedestrian deaths have increased by 3 percent.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act requires states to address this increasing safety concern, while maintaining state flexibility. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation and protect all roadway users.

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, when I offered the first legislation that ultimately became the Iraqi special immigrant visa, I have been haunted by the prospect of the brave Iraqi and Afghan nationals that risked their lives to help American efforts in these troubled countries, that they themselves would be victims because of their trust in us.

As my friend Kirk Johnson eloquently stated in the title of his recent book, ``To Be a Friend is Fatal: The Fight to Save the Iraqis America Left Behind'':

For 7 years, it has been a battle to have the United States

honor its obligations to those who put their trust in us when

they helped us.

As the United States has withdrawn from Iraq and is winding down in Afghanistan, people with very long memories are searching out, hunting down, and killing people they regard as traitors because they helped America as interpreters, as guides, as drivers.

We have seen some bright spots. One was where the program we fought so hard to establish was going to expire September 30, at the height of the government shutdown. In a reaffirmation of our ability to get something important done, we were able, on a bipartisan basis, to secure unanimous consent to keep the special immigrant visa program alive, at least through the end of the year, so we can work the problems out.

Another bright spot for me was being able to be at National Airport a couple of weeks ago, late at night, watching Janis Shinwari, the Afghan interpreter who saved the life of Captain Matt Keller, walk out of that causeway with his young wife and two children. It was a storybook effort of the will of Captain Keller, whose life Janis saved in a firefight, who wouldn't give up after 5 years. At times we didn't think it was possible, but after false starts and great danger to the family, they are now safe in America. This is an illustration of what can happen with effort and, candidly, a little media attention.

But now we are watching the State Department drag its feet on these visas for Afghans who risked their lives, creating impossible burdens for them to establish whether or not they are actually at risk.

Recent news accounts make it clear that there is a committee at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul that is placing inordinate roadblocks for people who we know are at risk, some of whom have already been hunted down and killed. We failed to establish a process that works for them.

We have only approved a trickle of the special immigrant visas out of the almost 9,000 that were authorized. It is unnecessary, it is shameful, and it is dangerous to long-term American interests. Who is going to trust us in the future if we need their help?

I was able to congratulate Secretary Kerry a few weeks ago for the State Department's rapid action to save the life of Janis, but every one of these thousands of cases should not require congressional intervention, extraordinary news coverage, and a major 5-year commitment from people like Captain Matt Keller.

There is no excuse to fail to make the SIV program work. Innocent lives are at stake, American honor is on the line, and our future actions could be compromised.

I would urge my colleagues to attend a session we are having next week to meet Kirk Johnson, who has dedicated his life for years to help these desperate people and for America to restore its honor. Join us next week in room 2168 in Rayburn on Wednesday for a special screening and discussion of the documentary ``The List.''

It is our duty now to save those who risked so much to help us when we needed them. They must not be left behind to the tender mercies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, last night, I was at National Airport awaiting Delta Flight 3395, 9:52 p.m.

Shortly after 10 p.m., Janis Shenwari, his wife, and two small children emerged to be greeted by Captain

Matt Zeller. They had been kept under wraps as they made their way from Afghanistan to the United States. There was just one television camera there to record this happy ending as Captain Zeller wrapped Janis in a big bear hug.

It was a happy ending to a story with many ups and downs, all too familiar for those of us who had been working with the Special Immigrant Visa program to secure the flight to safety from Iraq and Afghanistan for those foreign nationals who worked with Americans as drivers, as interpreters, as guides. Janis was an interpreter who saved the life of Captain Matt Zeller in a firefight.

He, for 5 years, has been stuck in sort of a bureaucratic limbo as Captain Zeller dedicated his time and energy to secure the release of a man he referred to as his brother. It happened--despite the fact that there was a false start where Janis had been given the visa, sold his possessions, prepared his family, only to have it revoked at the last minute--we think because the Taliban learned of this and leaked false information that he was, in fact, a collaborator.

His arrival to safety in the United States was testimony to a little bipartisan cooperation--some people in the much maligned faceless bureaucracy who went the extra mile, who administered a couple of polygraph tests to him and, within 3 hours after the end of the government shutdown, reissued the visa and sent Janis and his family on their way to safety. They woke up this morning in their own little apartment in Arlington to a new life, but thousands who risked their lives for Americans are still held hostage, at risk themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, in the midst of all the chaos surrounding the government shutdown and the harsh rhetoric on the floor, we were able to keep alive the visa program for Iraqis. We brought it back to life after it expired September 30. I would hope the same show of bipartisan support and bureaucratic activity, cooperation, and tenacity necessary to protect the visa program, and to make it work in the case of Janis, could be brought to bear to make sure that this program is extended for several years to allow escape to safety for other Iraqis in Afghanistan; that we can smooth the working of the agencies to expedite the granting of these visas from a trickle of a few dozen to a steady stream for the thousands whose lives are at risk because they helped Americans and they put their trust in us.

I think, as important as the lives of these people and their families are, and keeping our word, there is also a larger lesson, illustrating what can happen if we here in Congress are willing to work together. Yesterday, former House Minority Leader Bob Michel harkened back to an earlier era of extraordinary cooperation and civility that he enjoyed with Speaker Tom Foley.

Last night at the airport, I saw an example in this one family alive and well and safe of that same civility and cooperation. Who knows where that example might lead us next if we are willing to follow it?