Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the groundwork that is being carefully laid by Senate Finance Chair Baucus and Ways and Means Committee Chair Camp. It's absolutely essential that we reform a tax code that is hopelessly complex, unfair, and often counterproductive. The system is reaching the point of breakdown. The complex patchwork is difficult to administer, invites tax engineering, if not outright evasion, and is hugely expensive for those who are just trying to meet their obligations.

Through mistake and evasion, we lose approximately $365 billion of revenue each year that should be paid to the Treasury--$1 billion a day--and the estimated cost of compliance is $168 billion. With simplification and careful enforcement, we could easily gain tens of billions of dollars of revenue and allow individual taxpayers and businesses to shift resources away from compliance and tax engineering to growing the economy and providing for our families.

While we all may disagree with some fundamentals, it would be a mistake to begin with our areas of disagreement. I commend the chairmen for working to build common understanding on a path forward.

There is one area that has not been part of the tax reform discussion but is every bit as critical as solving our budget deficit, and that's to deal with our infrastructure deficit. Every day brings more stories of a Nation slowly falling apart and falling behind other nations that are modernizing their infrastructure, like Japan, China, India, and the European Union, all of whom spend more of their economy on infrastructure than does the United States.

Last week's potential water emergency in Prince George's County underscores a point made by my friend, Representative Don Young from Alaska: we leak more water than we drink; 1.9 trillion gallons of water is lost due to inadequate infrastructure underground. It is water, sewer, the electrical grid, transit, roads and bridges--the American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated we need to spend $2.3 trillion in the next 5 years just to maintain basic standards.

Transportation reauthorization finance is under the committee's jurisdiction, and it's fast approaching, with a highway trust fund unable to meet even current inadequate requirements. This resource gap prevented us from being able to enact a full 6-year reauthorization last Congress, hence, we're facing it again next year.

In the 20 years since the gas tax was last increased, the purchasing power of the fund has eroded dramatically due to inflation and increased fuel economy, so that the average motorist is only paying about half as much per mile as they did in 1993.

The failure to meet the revenue needs has required increased borrowing from the general fund, adding $55 billion to the deficit just to meet the current inadequate levels. At the same time, we've seen a collapse in the construction industry, costing hundreds of thousands of family wage jobs and slowing our economic recovery.

Resources have become increasingly inadequate to meet basic transportation needs, but at the same time the consensus among key road users in support of an increase has grown ever stronger.

A vast coalition has emerged in support of raising the fuel tax, which includes business, the professions, organized labor, nongovernmental organizations, the truckers, transit, and cyclists. The list of supporters is as long as it is varied.

Allowing an inflationary increase for the highway trust fund was part of the Clinton deficit reduction plan back when we had balanced budgets. More recently, it was included in the recommendation of the chairs of the President's deficit reduction committee, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. Making infrastructure a part of the larger tax reform proposal will meet a critical and growing need for our economy. It will help satisfy the concerns of those who were insisting on more revenue, but do so in a manner that's supported by a broad, diverse, and powerful coalition of interests.

We all have a stake in funding to rebuild and renew America. It's not just the quickest way to put people back to work but also to make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. And it just might be the smoothest path to tax reform as well.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that I'm introducing with my colleague, Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii, that would simply restore funding to the fiscal year '13 levels for cleanup and safety in public areas.

We take great pride in the United States in our military being the best trained and most powerful fighting force in the world, but decades of military operations and training have left a toxic legacy of dangerous explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres in this country. The Department of Defense has an obligation to remediate these dangerous areas, often in public or residential areas, in a timely fashion. This contaminated real estate contains housing, schools, parks, and playgrounds in every State and almost every congressional district in our country.

To help the Department of Defense become a better partner for our communities and our constituents, I urge you to join me in supporting funding for a program that will employ skilled, high-tech companies to clean up these dangerous liabilities and create opportunities for economic development on land that is currently a danger.

Just last month, at the height of the tourist season, Maryland officials were forced to shut down Assateague Island after a visitor noticed unexploded ordnance, or UXO, had washed ashore. Upon further investigation, they found hundreds of pieces of UXO that were discovered and had to be detonated onsite.

Our constituents demand that the United States lead by example. Keeping our families safe requires us to return the land to productive uses by paying for and cleaning up the mess we make. The Department of Defense agrees. Before the House Budget Committee last year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, when asked if there were a way to create a partnership between local communities and the Department of Defense, said:

I'd be more than happy to engage you in that process. The

only way to ultimately achieve savings is to be able to have

the cleanup and do it expeditiously. There are lots of things

I think we can do to improve the process.

I appreciated Chairman Young's reply on the House floor last July. When asked if the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee could commit to helping increase funding for environmental remediation on Formerly Used Defense Sites, Chairman Young said:

I say absolutely yes. I would very much like to do this,

because I believe we need to do it. We hope to have an

opportunity this year to do it right.

The funding levels would restore the DERP-FUDS account to fiscal year '13 levels by redirecting $25.1 million from the Ground Combat Vehicle, a program whose utility has been called into question by the CBO and CRS. It would take a modest reduction in funding by less than one-half of 1 percent. But restoring funding to this program would still mean that funding for this vital cleanup would be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent of defense spending.

At the current rate, the estimate is that it will take 250 years to clean up these sites. I find this embarrassing, frankly. I would hope that this would be the least we could do to keep faith with people who are at risk because the military has not cleaned up after itself. It's Congress that needs to step up and provide the funding so that the Department of Defense can do what it wants to do.

I yield the balance of my time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment simply reduces Research Development Test & Evaluation funds for the new Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine by 10 percent. Bear in mind, we are facing 10 percent sequestration cuts over the next decade. This will help the Navy plan for the likely effects of sequestration by cutting Cold War weapons rather than what the military really needs.

These replacement submarines are unaffordable and will weaken the surface Navy. They are expected to cost $6 billion per boat on average with a plan to procure 12 of them.

According to a report from the Arms Control Association, the operating cost of this replacement will be $347 billion lifetime. Even the Navy's own shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2014 said:

Replacing the Ohio-class submarines will have a

disproportionate impact on Navy shipbuilding plans.

It comes at the expense of other shipbuilding abilities and naval readiness. There are far more effective job creation plans than to undertake this initiative.

Our amendment offers a more balanced approach. We can easily afford to phase down or slow the replacement submarine program. The Navy can deploy 1,000 nuclear warheads on its submarines--as planned under the New START Treaty--with eight Ohio-class submarines, which means this modest cut can be easily handled.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined that the United States can provide for its security with fewer nuclear weapons. Yet nuclear acquisition programs are racing to preserve the current size of today's nuclear force.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on weapons the Pentagon says it will not need, we should realign our budgets with the reality that the United States plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I listened to my good friend from Florida, and I agree in terms of the necessity of having a strong nuclear deterrent, but he just ticked off that we would still have the air-based bombers and we would have land-based missiles. Even with eight nuclear submarines, we would have more than enough capacity.

Now, the historic arguments, I think, are a little bit distorted. Each of these new submarines carries 16 to 20 missiles. Each missile today carries four to five nuclear warheads, each 20 times more powerful than the bombs that decimated Hiroshima. One of these submarines--two, three, four--is adequate to serve as a deterrent for anybody going forward, especially when we have our air- and land-based in addition to this.

We have a deterrent that will make a difference to anybody as we are moving now to scale down the overall number of warheads, because who is it that we are deterring? North Korea? It doesn't yet have a missile that can even get to us, one, and a fraction of the firepower would destroy it. We could wreck China. We could decimate the Soviet Union. Deterrence is alive and well with a fraction of this, but embarking on a program to spend hundreds of billions of dollars--freezing us in time with, as I mentioned, $347 billion going forward--is foolish. Every independent analysis suggests that we will be better off in going forward with being able to right-size the nuclear deterrent. Even the 1,000 is probably more than we need today.

If we can't come to grips with the fact that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on things that don't make us any safer, that we can't afford, and that come at the expense of operational activities for our military that do matter, we are going to be trapped in this downward budget spiral, wasting tax dollars, not making America safer, not making it stronger, and not being able to have resources for things that would be of a higher priority for our military.

Now, notwithstanding all of the hyperbole here, this is a modest 10 percent reduction in the development resources. It's not going to stop our going forward, but it will be a signal to maybe take a deep breath and look at how we do this most effectively. I would strongly urge the approval of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I arrived at my office this morning to a Politico with the front page headline ``Blumenauer's Death Panel Bill Lives on.''

It's actually a terrific article by Joanne Kenen, but the terrible headline about nonexistent death panels symbolizes why, three Congresses later, we still have not helped families deal with the most difficult circumstances any of us will ever encounter.

This issue hit me with full force 10 years ago in the midst of the Terri Schiavo case, where we watched one family's tragedy turn into a national media circus and a political spectacle all because one 27- year-old woman didn't have a conversation with her loved ones to make her wishes known about what would she want if the unthinkable happened. And she was caught in the terrible circumstance of being in a vegetative state--brain dead--for 8 years with no likelihood of recovery.

It's not really unthinkable. It's just that many of us would rather not think about it. Too rarely do we have this conversation, yet virtually every one of us will be in these circumstances with ourselves or with a loved one unable to make their wishes known about health care because of permanent or temporary incapacity.

This is not just about end of life. It could be any decision: about whether or not to amputate a leg or to have an operation that carries with it significant risks. Who speaks for each of us when we're unable to speak for ourselves?

The public overwhelmingly thinks that people should have the information and that their insurance or Medicare should pay for that conversation with a medical professional. Unfortunately, today, Medicare will pay tens of thousands of dollars for a 93-year-old man with terminal cancer to have a hip replacement who will never walk again but will not pay for a conversation with that same person and their family to understand the circumstances they face and what their options are, to understand their choices and have those choices, whatever they might be, respected, known, and enforced.

This actually won't cost us anything. The evidence is that people who know more use their information to choose wisely--very often less intense medical interventions. Overall, it could actually save money.

Doctors are perhaps the best example. They certainly can afford medical care. They certainly know about it. Yet, because they know what works and what doesn't, they make their wishes known and strategically choose their health care. As a group, they actually end up using less medical care in their last year of life, but arguably have a higher quality of life. Everybody should have the same choice as a doctor.

I'm in the process of visiting with each and every Member of the House to see if we can do something that will give people the care they want that is overwhelmingly supported by the public and that won't cost the Federal Government any net cost.

I urge my colleagues to examine the bipartisan legislation H.R. 1173, the Personalize Your Care Act of 2013, that

Dr. Phil Roe and I have introduced to help families in their time of greatest need. I think it's worth a look. I think it's worth your support.

Mr. Speaker, it looks like we dodged a bullet with the Prince George's water emergency, but wasn't it fascinating to watch all of the frantic activity that was necessary to deal with a planned 4- or 5-day period where people would be denied something that virtually all of us take for granted? Safe drinking water when they needed it, as much as they need to drink, to bathe, to flush the toilet, to clean their dishes, to wash their clothes. The prospect of almost a week without water service really turned people's lives upside down.

I'm glad that there is a temporary fix that may have solved the problem at least for the foreseeable future, but I hope that it will serve as a wake-up call because, in the United States, frankly, we are spoiled. We take for granted something that 2\1/2\ billion people around the world cannot: having adequate sanitation and safe drinking water.

That's why I'm introducing legislation, Water for the World, with my colleague Congressman Poe from Texas, to enhance the efforts of the United States to be a partner to help poor people around the globe have access to what is a global problem, but we also need to do more at home. The challenges of climate change, combined with aging, inadequate water and sewer systems in the United States, place us at risk. We have 80 percent of our population served by over 50,000 community water systems that have facilities with a life span of 15 to, maybe, 95 years.

It was a wake-up call here in Washington, D.C., where the average water pipe is more than 77 years old. I remember a trip to Cincinnati-- the scene of the first municipal water agency in the United States. They have something that is not unusual. Cities still have some pipes that are brick and wood, dating back to the 1800s. You can find this around the country. That's why it has been estimated that 1.7 trillion gallons of water--1 out of every 4 gallons--leaks before it reaches the faucet. That's 7 billion gallons a day. Think of 11,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. If you were to place them end to end, they'd go basically from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh.

We need to have a national effort to provide the almost $10 billion that the engineering community estimates will be necessary by 2020 to avoid regular service disruptions like was threatened in Prince George's County. We need to move forward with bipartisan legislation-- with the Water Resources Development Act, the WRDA bill--that, if you'll pardon the phrase, has been bottled up. I hope House Majority Leader Cantor allows that to come to the floor. It has bipartisan support. It authorizes investments that would help deal with water resources for the country now, would prevent emergencies in the future and, by the way, would put tens of thousands of Americans to work all across the country.

With aging systems, water stress, drought, flood, we are just going to see more of the same going forward only on a scale of challenge that, until recently, was unimaginable. Let's use this as a wake-up call for Congress to step up and do its job not only with water and sanitation abroad but with water and sanitation at home, flood control, navigation--the energy challenges that are profound because of disruption to water. Let's start by an undertaking now on the scale that we know we can do and that is so important for our future. If we do, we won't just prevent problems like Prince George's was facing, but all of our communities will be more livable, our families safer, healthier and more economically secure--and by the way, it's the fastest way to jump-start the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

H.R. 5 takes a U-turn for educational policy.

It is interesting, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle in a farm bill a couple of weeks ago managed to unite environmentalists, farm groups, and taxpayer advocates in unanimous opposition to their proposal, and now they have done it again. They brought together business, education, civil rights groups, and a broad cross-section of organizations that don't agree with each other very often to oppose this bill. In part, it is what happens when you simply refuse to work in a bipartisan and cooperative fashion, as the committee used to do.

I have a very vivid example of the impact of this shortsighted approach. I represent Grant High School in Portland, Oregon. They won the national competition for the U.S. Constitution contest. That project of ``We the People'' has been zeroed out by Congress, and programs like this are not going to come back if we approve the approach of this bill.

It not only continues to undercut programs for education, the overall spending for education is, in fact, dramatically reduced. It keeps the sequestration cuts. We are going to lose over $10 million this year in Oregon, for instance. And worse, it locks in the post-sequestration funding level through 2019.

In addition, it takes away protections for key priority programs, dismantling provisions that would ensure equity. This legislation undermines the Federal partnership with the State and local communities to support education. That is why it is opposed by such a wide array of groups and why this House should reject it as well.

Madam Speaker, this is the latest chapter in a long- running process of deliberately trying to sabotage health care reform.

The delay of the employer mandate for 5 percent of American businesses that employ only 1 percent of American workers is not Earth- shattering, not entirely unforeseen, but more to the point, given a concerted effort by my Republican friends to dismantle health care reform, you would think that they would embrace it.

It is being attacked instead because there is no interest by my Republican friends in a comprehensive approach to making health care work better. They have no plan. This is simply a tactic to gain political advantage by fanning flames of discontent.

They want to take credit, actually, for many of the features of ObamaCare that are supported by the public, but they have no intention of either paying for them or providing a framework comprehensive reform so that it will work.

ObamaCare is actually working where it is allowed to work. In Oregon, we are seeing improvements in health care coverage, reduction in health insurance premiums, and we are on track to save tax dollars while improving the quality of health care. If everybody practiced medicine the way that it is being practiced in metropolitan Portland, people would get sick less often, they would get well faster, they would live longer, and there would be no Medicare funding crisis.

Instead of working to fine-tune the reform which embodies many of the principles that have been advanced, embraced, and implemented by Republican Governors--not just Mitt Romney, they have chosen instead to make it fail.

It is another illustration of a party without ideas, opposing comprehensive immigration reform, opposing agricultural reform. House Republicans won't even allow a conference committee to be appointed so that we can have a budget agreed to, while putting sand in the gears at every turn for efforts to get more value out of the health care system. It is not just sad and unfortunate, it is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the end of an era. On July 23, 2013, the man who holds the U.S. record--and possibly the world record--for the longest continuous running streak will be hanging up his shoes. Mark Covert, a legend in the world of track and field, has run at least one mile every day for the last 45 years.

In D.C. terms, that means he has run through nine presidential administrations, seven economic recessions and over 20 sessions of Congress. On a personal level, he has laced up his shoes every day through storms, heat waves, illnesses, surgery and even the births of his four children. If you ask him how he did it, he'll tell you it would never have been possible without the full support and encouragement of his wife Debi--especially on the birthdays.

Not only has he run through history, he has made it. In the 1972 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials, Covert was the first athlete to cross a finish line wearing an unusual pair of shoes with rubber soles that were made on a waffle iron. An entrepreneur by the name of Bill Bowerman had given him these shoes, which became the basis of a little Oregon-based company we like to call Nike. Although he just missed making the 1972 Olympic team, that run--and the nearly 150,000 miles he's covered during the streak, an average of about 9 miles a day for 45 years-- secured Mark's spot as a running icon.

Nevertheless, Covert's true impact has been on the many hundreds of students he's coached over the years. He instilled in them not only the skills needed to be successful athletes, but perhaps more important, the skills needed to be successful in life, especially dedication and perseverance in the face of obstacles.

While few of us will choose to take on the challenge of running every single day for 45 years, we can all strive to learn from and perhaps live by his main principle: Never Miss. He may physically end his streak on July 23, but his dogged determination and commitment to leading by example will carry on.

Last week's farm bill debacle in the House of Representatives highlighted a fundamental disconnect. My friends in the Republican majority felt that nutrition for poor people was not a priority because they were concerned about increasing government dependence for lower-income Americans.

Yes, there are more people receiving SNAP, or what we used to call food stamp benefits, because that's how the system is supposed to work. After our Nation suffered a near collapse of the economy, and with a much larger population of over 313 million people, we would expect that, in the face of persistent unemployment and job loss, more people would be on food stamps. We want them to get this assistance. It helps those families and it helps the economy.

Yet, by the same action, my friends passed the most expensive farm bill provisions in our Nation's history. Just like the direct payment program, which gave 75 percent of the payments to 10 percent of all farmers, the new price targets and crop insurance programs manipulate the market, concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, and fail to implement any basic reforms such as means testing and payment limits. The irony was not lost on many who watched the price tag go up and the benefits be concentrated in the hands of those who need it the least.

The bill lacked meaningful reform. The long overdue elimination of direct payments was coupled with a lavish increase in a new entitlement, shallow loss provisions of crop insurance. It locked in the currently high commodity prices as a threshold going forward. There were additional direct payments for cotton and a refusal to reform egregious sugar provisions. Subsidies for wealthy farmers are supported over innovation, research, and conservation. The bill lavished support on those that needed it the least, while stripping out nutrition support through the SNAP program, because they didn't want to foster dependence, all while a blind eye was turned to abuses in the lavish crop insurance program where fraud is 50 percent higher than in the maligned SNAP, or food stamp program.

I am hopeful that if this bill goes on to conference, we'll be able to reduce the costs, provide adequate support by reinstituting nutrition programs, and address long overdue reform for crop insurance.

At the same time, there would be some provisions that could actually bring people together. For years, I've been working in areas of protecting the pollinators. There are 250,000 little species that pollinate our food and help create $200 billion worth of food crops worldwide. One in every three forks of foods that we eat is due to pollination, as well as the flowers we enjoy, fruits, chocolate, and even tequila. Many of these things depend on these humble workers. Yet we've watched real threats to the critical habitat for pollinators. I'm hopeful that we can add a simple, nonpartisan provision that will make a difference for these protections.

Neonicotinoids are insecticides which have been linked to large bee die-offs. In one instance, it happened to 50,000 bees in Oregon last week. These insecticides have been banned for 2 years in Europe. I'm hopeful that as the farm bill goes forward, we can address putting a temporary ban on their sale here in the United States, taking a deeper dive on the impact they have on pollinators and, indeed, on the entire food chain for this very persistent substance that has the potential of affecting the impact not just of the health of bees but of our families as well. I'm also hopeful that we'll have a farm bill that can include low- or no-cost provisions like pollinating protection to bring people together to strengthen agriculture. These are vital parts of nature and of our food chain.

In the past, the farm bill wasn't a partisan battlefield. If we can focus on providing help for people who need it the most, rather than lavish subsidies for people that need it the least, and focus on innovation, conservation, and, yes, pollinator protection, things like this can strengthen our food supply, save money, protect the environment, and maybe enable us to make some progress in an area so far that looks embarrassingly remote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the relentless focus on the nutrition programs at risk; but remember, this is going to be the costliest farm bill in history. It contains no reform. It concentrates Federal cash on the largest, most profitable agribusiness. It shortchanges conservation, guts protection for wetlands, prairies, and forests. It rewards government dependency, not innovation.

You have managed to unite the Environmental Working Group, the Farm Bureau, and the Club for Growth in opposition. Congratulations.

Please reject the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that will help stop Congress from taking the Corps of Engineers back to the 1980s.

In 2007, Congress passed legislation requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to update its principles and guidelines, the P&G. These are used by the Corps in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource projects. This is something I've been involved with since I first came to Congress 17 years ago. I served on the Water Resources Subcommittee, and discovered that the Corps was trapped in time.

This update was critical in that these have not been updated since 1983. If you understand how the Federal Government operates, for something that was approved in 1983, they were probably in the works in the early seventies.

Earlier this year, the Council on Environmental Quality finally released an updated P&G that lays out broad principles to guide water investment as well as draft interagency guidelines for implementing the principles and requirements. These new P&G were developed over the last 6 years by Federal agencies and they incorporated extensive comments from the public, as well as the National Academy of Sciences.

The modernized P&G will help accelerate project approval, reduce costs, and support water infrastructure projects with the greatest economic and community benefits. They will allow for better consideration of long-term benefits, provide more flexibility for local communities, and promote more transparency in the Federal decisionmaking process.

Unfortunately, there appears to be language in the committee report accompanying this legislation that would prevent the Corps from implementing them. The report states:

The Corps shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled, ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,'' during the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development Act for 2014.

Does it make any sense at all to take work that has been in the process for years and tell an agency, You can't update your planning documents, prevent you from using updated resources?

During the floor debate on this issue in 2007, I indicated that I was embarrassed that the Corps was operating under guidance from a quarter century ago; now they are 30 years old. These principles and guidelines are older than most of our staff.

In 1983, Ronald Reagan was in his first term, Michael Jackson moonwalked for the first time, and Microsoft Word was first released. Think about the advancements in science, economics, and flood management, not to mention our environmental consciousness, all that have happened since 1983. That's what led the National Academy of Sciences, in the year 2000, to conclude that these needed to be ``revised to better reflect contemporary management paradigms; analytical methods; legislative directives; and social, economic, and political realities.'' It is even more true today than it was 13 years ago.

This issue is not just about a bureaucratic process for economists and scientists. These projects have significant impact on the ground.

In 2007, I highlighted the problems from an organization called Levees.org, a nonpartisan grassroots group founded after Katrina. The group's mission was to help educate the people of New Orleans about what happened in Katrina and how to move forward. They supported the amendment at that time because they know this issue is a matter of life and death, to be able to have the Corps use the best information, the best technology, and do the best job. Relying on principles and guidelines that are a quarter century old is not our very best. Over a third of a century is not our very best.

I can comprehend no reason why Congress would require the Corps to continue to rely on outdated documents and not take advantage of the work, the research, and the progress that's been made by people in the administration, in the Corps of Engineers, and the scientific community.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer the amendment because I truly believe that we ought to be able to understand with the committee what's going on, understand the benefits that led Congress to embed this in the law in the first place. I would look forward to having a conversation with my good friend, the chair of the subcommittee, and the ranking member to see if we can't resolve this for the benefit of the public.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues a very simple question: Can this Congress approve legislation that is supported by over 85 percent of the American public that is truly bipartisan legislation, with distinguished Republican cosponsors, and will not cost anything and, in fact, could even save billions of dollars? Can we give the American public something they not only want, but they need and to which they're entitled?

I would hope so. I would hope that Congress could act on the Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 1173, which I've introduced along with Dr. Roe, Mr. Reed, Mr. Hanna, Dr. McDermott, and Dr. Bera.

I would make part of the Record survey research by the Regence Foundation and the National Journal that shows overwhelming public support for this type of protection for families. Ninety-six percent of Americans surveyed said it was important that these health and end-of- life issues be a top priority for our health care system; 97 percent agree that it's important that patients and their families be educated about palliative care and end-of-life option treatments available, along with curative treatment; and 86 percent agree that these discussions about palliative care and end-of-life treatment should be fully covered by health insurance.

Americans agree that people need to know what faces them in difficult situations approaching end of life or when people are temporarily unable to make medical decisions for themselves. But Medicare, which will pay tens of thousands of dollars for a full hip replacement for a 93-year-old woman with terminal cancer, will not authorize a couple hundred dollars for her and her family to have medical consultation about her personal choices and circumstances for the future. Our legislation will change that.

There have been fascinating studies about how doctors die differently from the rest of us because they know what works and what doesn't. Doctors, it turns out, tend to consume health care much differently and often less in their final year of life. It's not that they don't understand. It's not that they don't have access to health care. They can afford it. They just know their situation better than the rest of us, they know what works, they know what they want, and usually that means comfort and quality of life and more control.

Our legislation will be a small, but important, step to make sure that every American is treated like a doctor in their last year of life: knowing their choices, knowing their prospects, being able to identify what they want, and make sure that their wishes are known and respected.

I don't think there are any of us on the floor of the House who has not felt some frustration. Can't we get something done? Here's an opportunity that doesn't depend upon what your view of ObamaCare is. Whether it's implemented, delayed, or repealed doesn't matter.

This is legislation that doesn't need to cost anything. It actually will end up saving money, but money is not the point.

Can we act together to do something for the public, show that we're not paralyzed, that we can work together, that

we can make progress in a difficult environment?

I would urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan and growing list of Members who have cosponsored the Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 1173. Some day Congress is going to deal with the vast looming crisis we face. In the meantime, helping patients understand their choices and make their wishes known and respected is an important step to start.

Survey Research From the Regence Foundation and the National Journal

Americans agree that discussions about palliative care and end-of-life

care treatment options should be fully covered

Now, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the

following statements regarding these health and life issues.

Discussions about palliative care and end-of-life care

treatment options should be fully covered by health

insurance: 86% agree.

Discussions about palliative care and end-of-life care

treatment options should be fully covered by Medicare: 81%

agree.

Americans of all stripes say it's important for these issues to be a

top priority for the health care system

Now that you've heard some more information, how important

is it that these health and life issues be a top priority for

the health care system in this country?

96%: important.

72%: `very' important.

Americans widely agree on the importance of educating patients about

their options and the value of a public debate

Now, please tell me whether you agree to disagree with the

following statements regarding these health and life issues.

It is important that patients and their families be

educated about palliative care and end-of-life care options

available to them along with curative treatment: 97% agree.

A public dialogue and debate about these health and life

issues will help patients and their families by providing

them with more information about their treatment options: 86%

agree.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, the dispatch with which the committee has moved forward made it not possible for me to offer the amendment that I was going to offer formally, but I just intend to deal with the issue very briefly for the committee and look forward to trying to work with the committee going forward.

Six years ago, in section 2032 of WRDA 2007, Congress directed the President to issue a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage from flooding. In addition to examining the risk to public health and property, Congress instructed the President to undertake an assessment of existing programs to address flooding, the effectiveness of those programs, and recommendations about how to improve them. Unfortunately, despite almost daily reminders that we see about flooding in the news, this report has yet to be written.

The President has requested funding for this study in its annual budget requests for the Corps of Engineers. The fiscal year 2014 budget calls this study a ``high priority evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to inland and coastal flooding and of the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of existing programs and strategies.'' I agree. And the amendment that I would have offered would seek to provide funding for the Corps to finally undertake the study.

The need is clear. Flooding is America's most common natural disaster. From 2002 to 2011, total flood insurance claims averaged more than $2.9 billion a year. Last month, a new FEMA report indicated that rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather are expected to increase the areas of the United States at risk by 45 percent by the end of this century.

The Federal Government, led by FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, plays a significant role in flood damage reduction and emergency response. Reducing flood damage is one of the core missions of the Corps. It builds levees, floodwalls, shore protection projects, and restores natural floodplains. However, our current understanding of the actions necessary to reduce vulnerability to flooding and, therefore, reduce the amount that we spend to respond to flooding is lacking.

If we could do this report, it would be very helpful. The Corps of Engineers spent $1.5 billion annually on flood control activities for the last decade, and Congress has provided over $26 billion in additional supplemental appropriations responding to flooding and other natural disasters over the same period.

Despite massive expenditures on flood control, flood damages have increased at alarming rates. Long-term average flood damages are more than double what they were earlier this century. Obviously, we're not doing everything right.

The cost of this study would only be $1 million. The Investigations program is being funded at $90 million. In order to reduce government spending, we need to know how much money we are continuing to throw at projects that may or may not help.

I would hope that we could work with the committee to make sure that we have the best information available before the Corps commits to even more projects. I would hope that we could work to make sure that this comes to

pass. It will make the job of the committee easier and will make a difference for Americans across the country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This is a momentous week--a path to citizenship passing in the Senate, the Supreme Court striking down DOMA, and, on Tuesday, President Obama recommitted his administration to deal with the moral imperative of climate change.

All around us the evidence is mounting--with extreme weather events, drought, flooding, wildfires, shrinking polar ice caps, invasive plants and pests our farmers have never seen before.

The President outlined new administrative initiatives because Congress is incapable of acting. Sadly, the House of Representatives is led by climate skeptics, climate deniers, and climate cowards.

My hope is, if the Republicans in the House won't allow action, they will at least stay out of the President's way. Protecting the planet and our grandchildren's future ought not to be bringing out the worst in us but the best.

Minutes ago, a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Kennedy, ruled that DOMA is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Today's decision is a monumental step forward in the long march towards GLBT equality.

Forty years ago, I chaired a committee hearing in the Oregon legislature on discrimination based on sexual orientation. It was an eye-opening experience for me. It was the first time someone ever acknowledged to me their sexual orientation, let alone the discrimination they faced living a life of repression and fear. In the course of those 40 years, it has been a privilege to have been able to help fight to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

We have watched a political movement emerge from the ashes of defeat, on discriminatory ballot measures across the country. It's exciting to see how this movement has been led at first by the people in the GLBT community, who refused to accept defeat, who, despite significant personal sacrifice, have stepped forward to declare who they are, who they love, what they want, and why they want it.

It has been encouraging to watch business leaders step forward, no longer just the more progressive elements of the business community. Lately, it has become mainstream to acknowledge that diversity in the workforce demands a nondiscrimination policy--that regardless of a person's sexual orientation and to whom they choose to commit, it makes no difference in the eyes of a thoughtful, successful employer.

It was exciting for me to watch and to participate in this year's Pride Parade in Portland, to note the leadership of virtually every institution in our community--businesses like Nike and Standard Insurance, Northwest Natural, grocery stores, colleges, hospitals and health professionals, universities, and churches--all marching proudly in a show of solidarity, a rejection of discrimination, support for diversity in the workplace for our friends, neighbors and relatives.

Today's Supreme Court decision marks the most significant milestone yet in this struggle. By striking down DOMA, the Supreme Court has cast aside a major barrier to our GLBT friends, neighbors and relatives to be able to live complete lives--to be able to avoid discrimination, the stigma, the economic disadvantage. It's a signal that this will be the final chapter for a society that recognizes the worth of all human beings, acknowledges the right of all human beings to live as they wish, love who they will and be able to enjoy the multiple benefits that come from being involved in committed relationships and legal marriages.

It's not just a milestone for our brothers and sisters in the GLBT community. It's a significant benefit for all society. If one truly believes that marriage is one of the cornerstones that we encourage for committed relationships, for people to be able to raise their families, look after one another in a stable, committed relationship, why shouldn't they be able to marry? Why should the Federal Government refuse to recognize that and discriminate? Some of the most traditional elements of our society who are dragging their feet should be in the forefront in helping lead this charge.

Now, we must be vigilant. There are still pockets of resistance, hostility, bigotry, and discrimination. There are State laws that need to be adjusted, but it will no longer be sanctioned by Federal policy, and that is the critical difference. Once it is no longer legal to discriminate, we are truly in the homestretch for the type of society we want.

This critical step was a narrow 5-4 decision, but it was a victory nonetheless. The path forward is a little more clear, and it's going to be a little easier. But before we start this next chapter, it's fitting that we celebrate this moment--the accomplishment of what it represents and what it will mean for America.

That temple of justice that is the Supreme Court looks a little different this morning, and I hope Americans will appreciate it and think about where we go from here.

Madam Chair, the failure by the House to pass the Farm Bill is the right outcome for a proposal that would have slashed nutrition for poor families and refused reforms to provide more benefits to most farmers and ranchers while it protected the largest agribusiness interests.

The authors of the bill refused to address the abuses in crop insurance, far greater than in food stamps which they so disdained, extended direct payments for cotton, and attacked conservation programs. The irony should not be lost on the public: the bill lavished extra payments on those who need it the least, hurt poor Americans who need the most assistance, and shortchanged typical Oregon farmers and ranchers who deserve better.

I hope that this debacle leads to legislation that is fairer to the taxpayer, does not cut support for hungry men, women, and children

(90,921 on food assistance in Oregon alone), and dials back wasteful support for large agribusinesses that don't need it.

I was encouraged that some of our reform proposals for increasing and expanding conservation, reducing support for large confined animal feed operation, and reforming sugar payments gained significant support. My amendment to allow universities to study the industrial uses of hemp was even adopted! It's worth noting that one of the amendments to implement reasonable limits on the crop insurance program received more votes than the Farm Bill itself. Ultimately these are the keys to save money, do a better job, and build the political support that is goirkg to be necessary for enactment of a Farm Bill that works for all Americans.