Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recently research has shown that fish populations are not waiting for climate change to make their habitat impossible for them to live. They're moving. That's right: fish all over the globe are migrating to cooler climates.

In a process that's been taking place for decades now, fish are sorting themselves out and leaving areas that no longer sustain their quality of life, their ability to reproduce and to thrive. They've steadily been moving to areas where the effects of climate change are not so pronounced.

Isn't it interesting that fish, without fancy scientific instrumentation or computer analysis, have reacted to the facts in the sea and moved where they can function, where they can live and where they can, at least for the time being, escape the impacts of climate change?

They're also escaping from people who depend on them in their previous habitat to fish, but that's another story on the consequences of climate change and global warming.

Isn't it time that the political process starts responding in ways that even fish can? One would hope. But, instead, today on the floor of the House, we're going to return to debate the Keystone pipeline that would carry oil extracted from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. gulf and short circuit Presidential review.

Given the potential negative environmental impacts, the repeated efforts by some to rush the environmental and public safety review process, the overwhelming number of comments and concerns received from the public and the recent news about the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have reached 400 parts per million, an amount not seen in at least 3 million years, I'm concerned that this sideshow over the Keystone pipeline will make our climate problem worse, rather than better, and poison the ability to make progress in the future.

The simple fact is that this pipeline would facilitate the exploitation of one of the dirtiest sources of energy--tar sands oil-- that poses public, safety, and health risks.

In addition to possible worsening of the effects of global climate change, there are serious questions that remain about pipeline safety, spill prevention, and protecting the public from potential health impacts in the wake of the spills that are inevitable.

Tar sand developers are amazingly exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund, making American taxpayers liable for the cost of any spills from the Canadian tar sands oil. This places, I think, an unacceptable and unnecessary risk on American taxpayers, one that we can ill afford to assume today.

This will be the seventh time that we voted and that I will vote against proposals to streamline the building of the Keystone pipeline as some Members of the House continually and repeatedly attempt to circumvent the legislative process and rush its proposal.

The only positive of this project is creating several thousand temporary construction jobs and a few dozen permanent jobs. That's no reason to short circuit the review required by law.

The potential environmental harm done by the pipeline--both from the threat of oil spills to the precious aquifer that it will be passing over and because tar sands emit three times more

global warming pollution than conventional oil--has led me to the conclusion that I hope President Obama does not approve the pipeline.

There are many things we should be doing to rebuild and renew America and create millions of jobs, not a few thousand temporary construction jobs. We ought to be looking at different approaches to revenue and dealing with carbon pollution. For instance, we are discussing a draft that would potentially tax carbon emissions dealing directly with the problem, help provide revenues to lower taxes, pay for what America needs and deal with emerging technologies and level the playing field for technologies of the future.

Now, as we watch climate change begin to have serious impacts on our environment, our fish, our wildlife population, and our seasons and the weather, the least we can do is stop actions that may well make climate change worse.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Grant High School Constitution Team from Portland, Oregon, winners of the national ``We the People'' Competition this year. Last month, 1400 students from high schools across 45 states and the District of Columbia came to our nation's capital to be tested on their knowledge of the Constitution, American legal history, and the role of the citizen in participatory government.

Since the Constitution's Bicentennial, the ``We the People'' Competition has emphasized the importance of civic education and involvement, and has pushed students to develop a deep knowledge of our government and a passion for our nation's principles. I continue to be greatly impressed by the students with whom I have had the good fortune to meet and watch in competition. They possess a nuanced understanding of the Constitution and a conviction in the strength of our representative government that is rare, even here in Congress.

Sadly, Congress has cut all funding for this national program, and continues to greatly underfund public education across the board. As a result of sequestration cuts, Oregon alone will lose $10.2 million in funding for primary and secondary education. The ``We the People'' Competition is exactly the type of program this Congress should be supporting--an investment that educates and grows our next generation of leaders and engaged citizens.

I applaud the students from Grant High School, the largest public high school in Portland, who overcame perennial budget cuts and teacher shortages to achieve a remarkable feat in winning this prestigious competition. They should serve as an inspiration to all of us and a reminder of the importance of civic education.

This year's winning team, led by teacher David Lickey, was made up of the following students: Leah Alpern, Ella Ben-Zaken, Allen Chan, Annelies Cowan, Jane Crabtree, Claire Eldredge-Burns, Nina Greene, Nate Grein, Morgan Grover, Ada Harris, Madeleine Kaczmarowski, Parkes Kedrick, James Knudsen, Kathleen Kohl, Miriam Kohn, Mac Larsen, Anna Learn, Lauren Meininger, Anayeli Nieves-Alvez, Emily Olsen, Adam Penrose, Ricky Rojas-Echenique, Austin Shaff, Mariah Shriner, Gaelen Snell, Halley Steiner, Jake Stein-Ross, Jacob Sutter, Simon Swifter, Daniel Thatcher, Dylan Tingley, Emily Turner, Grace Williams, and Kendall Wynde.

I would also like to recognize We the People Oregon State Coordinators Marilyn Cover and Barbara Rost, who for many years have been responsible for implementing this outstanding academic program through the Classroom Law Project in Portland, Oregon.

Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of common-sense regulations. I have also seen the challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that can appear to be bureaucracy at its worst. While I am very open to discussing how we can make regulations more effective and efficient, I am extremely disappointed with the anti-regulatory agenda of the House leadership prevalent last Congress and again reflected this year in H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

H.R. 1062 would require the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to add burdensome new procedures to regulatory processes that would unnecessarily delay the rulemaking process and consumer resources better directed to protecting consumers and ensuring a robust and effectively-regulated financial market.

I supported the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to rein in Wall Street, end taxpayer bailouts of big banks, and protect consumers. Under this Act, the SEC was charged with regulating a number of previously unregulated or under-regulated Wall Street and financial service sector activities that led in large part to the 2008 crisis. This is a hugely important job. Putting an additional layer of bureaucracy on the rulemaking process will not benefit the American people or our economy.

It's time for Congress to move beyond a debate about repealing or preventing regulations and focus instead on how to make them more effective and efficient. I oppose this bill because--despite its title--it will slow the process of putting in place effective financial regulations.

Madam Speaker, a few days ago, the world's atmosphere passed 400 million parts per million level of carbon, higher than anything we have seen in the atmosphere for over 3 million years. This puts in stark focus the climate crisis and the indifference we are seeing from congressional leadership on this problem.

In the last 24 hours, all you needed to know about the state of play for climate science and dealing with global warming was in two articles in the newspaper. Yesterday, the business section of The New York Times by Eduardo Porter discussed how the reinsurance industry is entirely comfortable with the climate science, predicting more rapid extreme weather events and dire consequences.

They in the insurance industry, after all, don't have the luxury of debating science when they must deal with facts on the ground. This is dollar and cents for a vast industry trying to help people cope with the consequences of natural disaster. As a result of the market discipline, they have had to embrace reality, accept it, and plan for it.

It was poignant that Porter observed and probed their lack of engagement in government policies, at least in the United States, that would help minimize future damage. Remember, this is even as the scientists told us we have had the highest concentration of carbon for 3 million years.

In today's Washington Post, there is a front-page story about fish populations that aren't waiting for their habitat to make it impossible for them to live. Species all over the globe are moving. They are migrating to cooler climates. In a process that has been taking place for decades now, fish are sorting themselves out and leaving areas that no longer sustain their quality of life, their ability to reproduce, and to thrive. They have steadily been moving to areas where the effects of climate change are not so pronounced.

Isn't it interesting that fish without fancy scientific instrumentation or computer analysis or, dare I say it, political focus groups have reacted to facts in the sea and move to where they can function, where they can live, where they can escape for the time being, at least, the impact of climate change?

They are also escaping from the people who depend on these fish for their living in the previous habitat. But that is another story about the devastation that local communities are facing because of the climate change consequences.

Isn't it time that the political process starts responding to a problem that even fish can figure out?

What is it going to take for people in this body to wake up to their responsibilities and act with the same insight as aquatic species that don't have graduate degrees in computers but, mercifully for them, don't have political blinders and ideological fervor, wasting huge amounts of time on pointless activities like debating whether to repeal ObamaCare for the 37th time?

Hopefully, insurance companies and the people who depend on these aquatic creatures will lend an air of reality to the discussion of climate change that is almost nonexistent here on Capitol Hill, maybe reaching the point where it is no longer a debate because it's really past time for a debate.

It is time for us to take action like our friends in the ocean. If Charlie the Tuna can figure it out, why can't the Republican leadership in Congress? Let's maybe spend a little time debating with the Safe Climate Caucus this existential crisis of climate change and global warming.

Madam Speaker, this is, as has been pointed out, the 37th attempt to repeal the health care reform. It has been my privilege to run 37 marathons in my career, but at least when you run a marathon you get someplace.

Millions of people are benefiting from the health care reform. Over a third of a million small businesses are getting tax credits to be able to help insure their employees. We are seeing aggressive efforts at better care, lower cost, eliminating lifetime limits, keeping young people on their parents' insurance policies.

Madam Speaker, we are finding across America there are literally hundreds of thousands of people working on the implementation of this legislation. Is it perfect? I haven't seen a perfect bill, especially one that is dealing with 17 percent of our economy. It is a dramatic improvement over what we have got. But instead of working with us to refine and improve over the course of the last 4 years, we go through these pointless exercises without offering an alternative.

My friend, my colleague from New York (Mr. Crowley), had their plan: a blank piece of poster board. No specifics; no effort to come forward with something that would do a better job of meeting the needs of seniors' prescription drug problems, young people, patient protection, lifetime limits, payment reform.

I will tell you, in Oregon I have met with thousands of professionals in the health care arena who are working cooperatively on making sure that Oregon is a model of how to do it right.

The health care reform train has left the station. We are not going to be repealing it today. We ought to be working to refine it in the future.

I rise in opposition to the Pay China First Act. Simply by putting this legislation on the floor, it does real damage in terms of putting questions in the minds of people around the world who to this point have been giving billions of dollars to the United States Government to be able to pay for past spending at record low rates.

I listened to the last speaker opine that we need to do everything to justify the faith in the American people. Well, the reckless threats that we saw 2 years ago, where, for the first time, we really were staring into the face of the abyss and it was a real possibility that they would withhold the votes, deny increase in the debt ceiling and, for the first time in our history, not pay for spending already incurred, in fact, ironically, the Ryan budget would have required a massive increase in the debt ceiling. The American people know this, and no amount of subterfuge here is going to eliminate that doubt, that concern, that apprehension. It may give the illusion of a few more days' breathing room with the debt ceiling.

What we need to do is set this aside and get to business. I would note, with no small amount of irony, that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been so interested in a budget now refuse to appoint members for a conference committee so that the House and the Senate can come together and do that. That would be a lot more productive than this charade.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Balancing Food, Farm, and the Environment Act of 2013. This legislation modernizes the conservation title of the Farm Bill to better reflect farmers' needs and the priorities of the American public. I know from working with farmers in Oregon that many farmers are the best possible stewards of their land, and they are producing healthy, local food in ways that protect their livelihood, their farm, and the environment. The Farm Bill as a whole, however, does far too little to reward good stewardship, support sustainable farming practices, or meet conservation priorities.

The Balancing Food, Farm, and the Environment Act of 2013 leverages current Farm Bill programs to produce better environmental outcomes and increase ease of access for farmers. The bill prioritizes longer terms of protection for high-priority environmentally-sensitive lands, providing a better return for taxpayers and stability for farmers. It also makes clean water a higher priority in conservation programs, increasing protection and restoration for riverbanks. The Balancing Act targets wetlands and critical habitat to protect wildlife population. It increases access to program funding for farmers, and expands the funding available for technical assistance. It helps keep antibiotics out of our water and food by reducing grants to factory farms and by helping farmers transition to organic or less antibiotic intensive farming methods. Finally, the Balancing Act acknowledges that American farmers are experiencing impacts from climate change, and it provides funding for adaptation and mitigation of these effects.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation on behalf of our farmers, the millions of Americans who care about a safe, healthy, domestic food supply, and our grandchildren, who will live with the air, water, and soil we pass on to them.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so called ``Working Families Flexibility Act,'' which more accurately should be called the ``Less Pay for Middle Class Families Act.'' I voted against similar legislation in 1997 and continue to strongly oppose this policy. In effect, this bill takes pay from the pockets of American families and loans it to their employers, with no condition that they pay it back for up to a year. If enacted, this policy would make life even more difficult for millions of middle class Americans. Even the bill's promise of flexibility is only true for the employer, which can determine on its own when the employee could use any accrued compensatory time. Enactment of this bill would translate into less money for American workers, more power for their employers, and breaks the time-honored tradition that extra work means extra pay.

This bill is an affront to middle class families across America. I oppose it.

Today, the Environmental Working Group launched their Worth It campaign, highlighting the invaluable role that small and midsized farmers play in protecting our environment, contributing to our economy, and strengthening our core values.

I could not agree more. It's our small and midsized farmers who are some of the best stewards of our land.

Many of those farmers talk to me about climate change. They're worried. They're outside every day, seeing the impact changing weather has on their topsoil, crop patterns, and water availability. They're the people who experienced the 3,527 weather records that were broken last year, and they're the ones asking Congress to help them.

That's why, later this week, I will be introducing the Balancing Food, Farm and Environment Act, to assist farmers to better adapt to climate change impact and to continue to support their stewardship efforts by updating the conservation provisions in the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote may be the first of many to undo the painful and unfair impact of sequestration on our food safety system, housing services, public schools, Head Start programs, our transportation programs, and a host of other vital government services. However, I fear that a piecemeal approach would represent a continuation of the incredibly broken process in Washington, DC. Even though I will vote for today's measure, it will be an embarrassment if this is the only action we take to reduce these cuts.

I voted against the Budget Control Act for a reason; sequestration was intended to be painful. Picking and choosing programs to restore, instead of reforming our budget overall and raising revenue, shirks our fundamental responsibility as members of Congress. We must address the big picture: we need to cut programs that are irrelevant or even harmful, such as the nuclear arsenal and agricultural subside. We need new revenues that address the inequities in the tax code. It will require a comprehensive approach but will result in a sustainable budget future.

By all means protect the vital operation of the FAA. More importantly, restore the hundreds of vital programs crippled by sequestration by replacing them with strategic cuts and new revenues that will strengthen our economy and county. This should be our number one priority.

Mr. Speaker, there's an amazing collection of young people from around the country that are gathering in our Nation's Capital this weekend. They are part of the annual competition on the United States Constitution. It is my pleasure to visit with my constituents from Grant High School from Portland this morning, young people who have dug deep into the Constitution. They're passionately prepared to defend the principles, and are developing skills that'll last a lifetime.

It is unfortunate that Congress has failed to support the Classroom Law Project budgetarily. I would hope that there's an opportunity to reflect on what these young people are doing and what we could do in addition if we stepped back up and provided the resources so they could be available for more young people. At a time when America faces challenges and there is a breakdown in the other body not even being able to approve gun background checks something that 90 percent of the American people want, we ought to be supporting young people who are doing this important work of democracy.

I congratulate Grant High School, teacher David Lickey, and their coaches who are working with them. Regardless of the outcome, they are already winners.

Madam Chair, cybersecurity experts in government and the private sector agree that the biggest impediments to strengthening cybersecurity are obstacles that prevent the sharing of cyber threat information. The intent of the bill before the House, H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is laudable in that it eliminates some of those obstacles. Security and privacy, however, should not be mutually exclusive and CISPA does not go far enough to protect privacy. This is the bottom line for me, my constituents, and I hope the Obama Administration, and why I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Monday in the blink of an eye, hundreds of people at the Boston Marathon were faced with an awful decision. None of them woke up that morning expecting they, or a loved one, was going to need emergency care in a life-threatening situation. We tend to think of end-of-life care as the province of a terminally ill person, often elderly, but that's just one circumstance, and not necessarily the most common.

The decisions need to be made instantly about whether to amputate a limb, and a decision must be made that moment. If a person is in shock or unconscious, who helps make that decision for them?

Last week, I had two more circumstances where people in my life were faced with totally unexpected life-threatening circumstances that brought these questions into sharp perspective. Anybody, anywhere, any time. How do we make sure that these decisions, which are made every day in every State in virtually every city, are made in accordance with the best interest and wishes of the patient and the patient's family?

I've been working for the last 5 years for the Federal Government to be a better partner with families. It's called end-of-life care, and the Federal Government, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Congress are missing in action. Medicare will spend billions of dollars on the most expensive, invasive, painful, and in some cases, if not unnecessary, at least questionable care, often regardless of the wishes of the patient and their family. Yet Medicare won't pay $100 or $200 for that medical professional to have a conversation with the patient and their family.

It's time for us to step up. We need to make sure that we clear up the questions in everyone's minds about the choices, the consequences, what the patient and the family want, and most critically, make sure those wishes are honored. Like my friend, whose heart stopped this weekend, totally unexpectedly, we don't know when or where a loved one will be in this position. But there's no excuse we don't do everything we can to help families and encourage everyone that is close to us, that works with us, to take their own steps to identify who speaks for them when they can't, and what they want to happen.

This is personal for me. I had these jarring reminders that one of the greatest gifts each of us can give our families is to have a thoughtful and frank discussion about what our wishes would be for medical care if we're unable to suddenly make those decisions. It's also one of the greatest gifts that this Congress can make to the people we represent by doing our job so that the Federal Government is a better partner in making sure those conversations are possible.

Please cosponsor our bipartisan Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 1173, and then sit down and have this conversation with your family. It's not always the easiest, but it is far better than making your loved ones guess and feel guilty.

In the aftermath of the 10th anniversary of the war in Iraq this spring, those of us who oppose the war, as those who thought it justified, are all sorting through what happened. More important, we are united in our support for our men and women in uniform who fought that heroic effort regardless of our feelings about the war's justification or history's verdict.

We have an obligation to all those who served to smooth their reentry and to minimize the price they paid for that war.

But there is another group who put themselves at risk for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am speaking of the Iraqi and Afghan nationals who worked with the American soldiers--thousands who were shoulder to shoulder with our troops, often in the most difficult of circumstances. They provided services as guides and interpreters that literally made the difference as to whether our soldiers lived or died.

I've talked to returning servicepeople who made clear how important it was that they had that help and how grateful they were to the Iraqis and Afghans who played those vital roles. I've worked with some of those soldiers to try and bring to America--to safety--some of those people who worked with them.

There is another group who knows about their contributions--the hostile elements still on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are people with long memories, who have vowed to take retribution for what they felt was an act of betrayal. Countless foreign nationals who worked with us have paid the price. They, along with members of their families, have been attacked, kidnapped, and killed.

We have an obligation to get them out of harm's way.

That is why I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol in 2007 to create a special immigration visa program to enable them to come safely to the United States. It's a program not just for Iraqis; but starting in 2008, it was extended to Afghans as well--anyone who faced an ongoing and serious threat as a result of their employment for and on behalf of the United States Government. These two programs have enabled us to save the lives of these brave Iraqis and Afghans who often were in the heaviest fighting and whose contributions were most critical.

But we're facing two serious problems:

One, the programs are set to expire--for Iraq, September 30; for Afghanistan, 1 year later. Even more critically, we need to make sure that the special immigration visas, the SIVs, that have already been authorized are utilized. The processing has been incredibly slow.

Recently, joined by 18 of my colleagues of both parties, including six of our colleagues who were veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, we urged the administration to work with us to extend and reform the visa program. Let's cut through the extensive paperwork, the numerous agencies and timelines involved with all the background checks,

provide the transparency to applicants so they know where they're at, and address the adverse decisions by a chief of missions so people have a chance to correct the record.

Make no mistake--this is urgent.

Just yesterday, on the front page of The New York Times, there was the story about an Afghan interpreter named Sulaiman, who has been working with us in Afghanistan for over a decade in over 300 missions in highly dangerous Special Operations assignment. Over the course of the last few years, the Taliban has attempted to kill Sulaiman three times; but despite his exemplary service and the extreme threat to his life, that visa we created is not functioning for him. After 2 years, he remains in limbo, with no visa and the program set to expire. Only 22 percent of the Iraqi visas and 12 percent of the Afghan visas have been issued. These are ready to go.

Last fall, The Post reported that over 5,000 documentarily-complete Afghan applications remained in a backlog. No doubt, the past performance is abysmal, but we have an obligation to extend and reform the programs and to make sure we give the resources necessary to deal with the understandable paperwork involved.

This bipartisan issue offers Members of Congress and the administration the chance to work together to save lives and ensure the safety of our troops currently serving in harm's way and future missions abroad. Otherwise, no one in their right mind is ever going to cooperate with U.S. forces under these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that House Resolution 1120, the so-called ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Relations Act'' would actually create greater uncertainty for labor unions and businesses and wreak havoc on the middle class. I do not understand the interest in scapegoating America's unions for the economic problems that beset us. It was not America's grocery clerks, nurses, teachers, postal workers, or electricians that nearly caused the meltdown of the economy. America's working men and women didn't engineer poor loans, systematically cheat consumers, and transform financial institutions into giant casinos. However, there are some in this Chamber who seem convinced that getting rid of labor unions will advance their agenda.

This bill essentially shuts down the Labor Relations Board, by refusing to allow them to issue decisions, enforce existing decisions, or move forward with rulemaking. It means that labor and business issues that are currently unclear will remain unclear. It increases the chance of a strike, because without the National Labor Relations Board to help mediate, workers will be more likely to strike to protest unfair working conditions.

Let's remember that it's not just union members who benefit from America's unions. Our entire society benefits from their efforts. It was organized labor that spearheaded efforts for a 40 hour work week, brought safety to the workplace, fought for environmental protection, and championed pay equality for women. It is not just rhetoric that unions brought you the weekend. Unions are among the few strong voices who continue to stand up for a strong livable wage for our workers.

It's important to be thoughtful about the best way to navigate labor- business relations. I'm all for fine tuning the system, but I am adamantly opposed to gutting rights and protection of workers. We must start by acknowledging the debt we owe to unions and to stop this wholesale assault. I will vote no on H.R. 1120, and I will be disappointed if I am not joined by more of my colleagues.