Floor Statements

This evening, we're expected to vote on an item that has many commendable and important items. Unfortunately, too many are of short duration, much is left out, and most importantly we're losing a real opportunity for reform.

The SGR is left in a year to torment medical providers again. The AMT, I'm pleased, is patched--I appreciate the advocacy of my friend, Mr. Neal. But, in fact, we all know that it should, at a minimum, be reformed, if not repealed.

We have a body blow to the alternative energy industry, and somehow it's given a year's reprieve, but it's not what they need or what they deserve. And because we refuse, at a moment of opportunity, to deal meaningfully with the national debt--and remember, the budget from my Republican friends, authored by my colleague, Mr. Ryan, would have required $6 trillion headroom in the debt ceiling.

Now, we cannot continue to have the world's largest and most expensive military by far, the lowest taxes of any of the major economies, the most expensive and inefficient health care, and continue to allow our country's infrastructure to fall apart while America ages and grows.

This proposal represents absolutely the least we could have done under these circumstances and, tragically, institutionalizes for the next Congress the madness around here of short-term frenzy around self- inflicted deadlines that have no reality to them. That drives the American public crazy, and with good reason.

Not only can we do better, I would suggest that we must do better.

It's probably going to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. So be it. I can only hope that, in that spirit of taking a risk on both sides of the aisle--and both parties and the administration--that the administration and the new Congress gets serious about reform and delivering services more cost-effectively in ways, ironically, that people on both sides of the aisle agree with that are absent in this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is here on New Year's Eve with the people they love: themselves, the special interests, and the policies of the past.

The overhyped fiscal cliff may well be upon us, and we will find $600 billion of deficit reduction with tax increases and spending cuts, and then there will be the howls that we are doing it too abruptly from some of the same people who demanded this system of expiring cuts and sequestration in the first place.

Make no mistake. There will be some real damage. We will be squeezing some people who deserve far better, and then we'll be scrambling to refine the budget reductions in a way that makes sense. And some time in the hours, days, and weeks ahead, we will get a semibalanced small agreement, very likely, struggling throughout the new Congress with budget bluster, especially in the House, moving from crisis to deadline to showdown.

It's ironic because it doesn't need to be this hard. We could use the pressure and revenue from expiring temporary tax cuts to enact tax reform to provide the money that a growing and aging American population needs, but do it in a simpler, fairer way. We could actually reduce entitlement spending on Medicare by accelerating the health care reform, which is what, in Oregon, we've committed to do in exchange for some flexibility and some upfront funding. We have in place a program going forward that, if done on a national level, would save over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

We shouldn't be fooling around with patching an outmoded, unfair farm bill. Let's reform it to support family farmers and ranchers, beginning farmers, especially those who grow food, not large agribusiness producing heavily subsidized commodities. We can save money, protect the environment, enhance wildlife, the experience for hunters and fishermen, and have a healthier America.

The military is the greatest source of money. We can start with 135,000 soldiers scattered in over 1,000 bases across the globe. We have a nuclear arsenal where we are spending several hundred billion dollars on weapons we can't use, we don't need and can't afford.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the public would support us in these steps. The good news is that, if we ever got the chance to consider them in a fair and open debate on the floor of the House, we would find bipartisan support for each of these real saving options. The good news is that, ultimately, we are going to take these steps, proving, once again, the wisdom of Winston Churchill when he observed that you could always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted every other possibility.

Madam Speaker, today, I voted against the Fiscal Year 2013 Intelligence Authorization Act. Despite keeping funding levels flat and capping personnel levels to that of Fiscal Year 2012, this authorization is not significantly different than the earlier version I voted against in May.

It is another missed opportunity to make significant, smart reductions in our intelligence infrastructure, at a time when we're asking so many others to make significant budgetary sacrifices in the midst of austerity. This legislation continues to spend way too much money--$72 to $78 billion a year--with little transparency or efforts to reduce the sprawling intelligence community and protect privacy rights.

It's of paramount importance to keep our country safe, and that's exactly what our intelligence community has done, but we cannot afford to spend as much on intelligence as Russia does on its entire military budget or employ hundreds of thousands of people with secret clearance.

Mr. Speaker, this defense authorization legislation is a missed opportunity. Our Republican friends would have us approve this at a time when we're struggling with the long-term fiscal stability of the United States. We're set to pass a bill that authorizes funding above what we approved in the Budget Control Act. This is spending 20 percent above the Cold War average, double what we had in 2001.

Even if somehow we went over that dreaded fiscal cliff and sequestration kicked in, it would only reduce spending to what it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation, when we were fighting two wars. It's a missed opportunity.

I heard my friend from Utah talk about avoiding any increase in fee in terms of health care. Excuse me?

We're looking at draconian impacts that some are suggesting for some of our society's most vulnerable. And, here, we haven't adjusted a fee since 1995.

The Department of Defense is going to spend $50 billion on health care. It's gone up 300 percent since 2001. Ten million people are involved, and they count it as a point of pride that we're not making any adjustment at all? For a retired three or four star general earning a pension of over $200,000 a year, 80 percent of whom go to work for the defense industry, and they pay a $50 fee?

I'm sorry, I think it's a missed opportunity.

I heard my friend from Utah talk about the nuclear arsenal and upgrading intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think this is a missed opportunity. Look at the nuclear arsenal, we're spending over $55 billion a year--we don't know how much more because that information isn't readily available--for weapons that have not enabled us to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Many of these weapons we can't use, will never use, but we're going to spend $200 billion upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years. And we're looking at three separate delivery systems, including new submarines at almost $5 billion a piece. Against whom?

We need a tiny fraction of this to deal with China or Russia. Our nuclear arsenal isn't stopping Iran from trying to achieve its nuclear weapon.

These are sad, missed opportunities to right-size the military, which will still be the most powerful in the world, by far.

For us to deal with the threats that we face today, to deal with the damage that we have done in the reckless misguided war in Iraq, to be able to deal meaningfully with the Guard and Ready Reserve that should be upgraded and healed from the damage that was inflicted upon them.

We can provide far more real security, save tax dollars, deal with the needs of veterans that are about to be, sadly, undercut, and provide balance to our budget. In fact, the fiscal instability from reckless bills like this is, in fact, a national security threat.

We're no longer going to be able nor should we pay almost half the world's entire military spending. We should start by rejecting this authorization.

Mr. Speaker, the reality behind the fiscal cliff is that, if we really get down to work, talking with one another, digging into the details, it really is not that hard.

The nuclear arsenal is a prime example and something that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It is an illustration of why the fiscal sequestration level over the next 10 years for the Department of Defense, which would bring it down to 2007 spending levels, adjusted for inflation, is really not that draconian.

During the Cold War, the United States spent, on average, $35 billion a year on its nuclear weapons complex. Today it spends an estimated $55 billion.

The nuclear weapons budget is spread across the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. And the government doesn't publicly disclose how much it is, but the last year that the elements were aggregated together, it spent at least $52.4 billion. That's in 2008, according to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

That doesn't include classified programs, and it was 5 times the State Department budget, 7 times the EPA, and 14 times what the Department of Energy spent on everything else it does.

Indeed, the President agreed to a $200 billion modernization in order to secure the approval of the strategic arms reduction treaty in the Senate.

Well, perhaps it's time for us to take a step back and ask what is actually the purpose. Who is the enemy that this nuclear arsenal is going to deter?

The nuclear arsenal didn't stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. It's not helping us at all with the terrorists who are now the central focus of our security concerns. It doesn't help in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we basically have a stalemate between Russia and China.

Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II. They likely never will be, so why do we need land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, and submarine launch delivery systems, all three of them?

Do we really need 12 new strategic submarines that will cost almost $5 billion a year, if we're lucky and contain costs?

Who actually is being deterred by this massive spending and buildup?

Exactly what are the circumstances 30 years from now that call for this massive stockpile of weapons and three redundant delivery systems?

You know, recent articles in the Post by Walter Pincus really focused on this. There's Dana Priest's work also in the Post; GAO reports--you don't have to dig very deeply to find out that this is a bloated, flawed program with little technical benefit for us now, a great deal of fiscal pain currently and well into the future.

Twenty-one years ago, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally announced the elimination of thousands of land-based tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe and an end to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based Naval aircraft.

Billions had been spent over the years on such weapons, but there was really never any plans for how to use them. Most have been dismantled, and the United States today is no weaker. Most, frankly, have not even noticed.

What could we accomplish over the next 10 years with the same sort of bold thinking on the part of the President, the Pentagon, and Members in Congress?

It's time that we find out.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I strongly identify with the persistence and the eloquence from Chairman Johnson and my friend, Mr. Doggett, to deal with this problem of identity theft.

The hearing was a little unnerving. I appreciate the follow-through and, hopefully, something will happen. I identify strongly with the arguments you made on behalf of it.

But I would like to focus, if I could, on one other element because it's directly related. And I see my good friend, Mr. Gerlach, is here on the floor, and I anticipate will be speaking to it as well.

We should be concerned about maybe learning another lesson from the Department of Defense, which, as the chairman mentioned, is already using this for their purposes. Being able to use an opportunity for a Common Access Card for Medicare will have very important application to the area of rampant Medicare fraud.

Sixty billion dollars is the number we have heard in our subcommittee. It could be more, it could be less, but it's a huge sum of money, and it compounds going forward.

Our first concern, however, should be about the quality of care for the senior citizens who receive Medicare. And the Common Access Card, being able to digitally track this information, provides security for these transactions, makes it less likely that there will be mistakes, be able to follow up and follow through.

Second, it will, in fact, help us stop fraud. This is an area that has been relentlessly abused, where people order, there are changes in the order, sometimes orders are actually made that are entirely different than what people had requested.

Having this secure card will enable people to be able to have the security of the transaction, know where it's at, greater accuracy of billing, track mistakes, stop fraud. And I cannot say strongly enough that I think it's important for us to move.

I appreciate the work that was done putting a study over the next 2 years about this provision. But with all due respect, I hope, as this legislation works its way through Congress--and I hope that it is yet enacted while we are still here for the 112th Congress--that we're able to be serious not just about a 2-year study. This is an area in which we ought to be able to implement pilot projects right now across the country.

It would make a difference for the administration. I think there's no question we could come to scale very quickly, help senior citizens and the reliability of their Medicare coverage, reduce fraud, and allow government to track our activities going forward.

There's a lot of talk about the fiscal cliff and the need to save money and the back and forth that's going on here. But this provision that Mr. Gerlach and I are advancing is a simple, commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help us right now improve service, save money, and improve the reliability of the system.

I would hope that this is the sort of provision that would find favor with our colleagues in the House, and with the administration, working together, we can implement those pilot projects sooner rather than later and have broader application for great, positive effect for Medicare, for the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, the jarring violence of last week seared into our consciousness. It started in Portland, Oregon, with a mall shooting that might have been worse, and ended in Newton, Connecticut, where it's impossible to imagine that it could have

been worse. It's part of an ongoing pattern of carnage because we lose one life to gun violence every 20 minutes every hour every day.

The mass murderer's rampage gets the Nation's attention, but the same total loss of life at Sandy Hook happens more than twice every day all year long.

This is personal for me not just because the mall shooter was in my district, but I had a high school friend who was killed with a random, freak drive-by shooting. My brother took his life with a handgun as a young man. I've supported gun safety provisions at the State and Federal level at every opportunity. It might be different now, not just because of the horrific images of parades of funerals for little children.

I salute Mayor Bloomberg's unstinting advocacy for gun safety and mobilizing America's mayors who bear the brunt of gun violence. I welcome the President's leadership and will support any reform that he advances.

But I would urge my colleagues to read the columns in the Sunday Times by my fellow Oregonian, Nick Kristof, and Ezra Klein's article in yesterday's Washington Post. They demonstrate we know what works. There are examples around the world. Even in America with lax, weak gun protections, there are, in fact, some regulations in some places, and they make a difference.

Let's treat gun violence like any public health crisis, which I would say losing 30,000 lives a year would qualify as a crisis. We need to treat it like the threat to public health and families that it is, treat a gun like any other consumer product. This is how we slashed the auto death rate--vehicle design and driver behavior, enforcement and education.

For guns, it starts when Congress stops being intimidated by the extremists, and then just do what the majority of gun owners agree we should do--renew the assault weapon ban which many of us will introduce under the leadership of our dear friend and colleague, Carolyn McCarthy; ban large magazines and the most devastating bullets; and close the gun show loophole. These are for starters, things that NRA members agree with.

Let's care as much about real guns as we do about toy gun consumer protection to start us down the road of making our children safer, by treating children's gun safety like their auto safety.

With all the airbags, anti-drunk driving campaigns, child seats, driver education, careful licensing, we slashed the accident rate. Yes, it didn't eliminate accidents all together. But we can't imagine a world without these protections for our families.

Let's see if we can imagine a world where our children are safer from gun violence, and then make it happen.

It's difficult to focus on the task at hand in the aftermath of a shooting rampage in my district yesterday. With at least 10,000 people in a shopping mall, a young man allegedly, say some eyewitnesses, in body armor, and armed with a semiautomatic weapon discharged 60 or more shots. There were two people killed and a young 15-year-old girl seriously wounded.

Mr. Speaker, one is haunted by these events. We had one in Aurora, Colorado, at the theater where there were 12 people killed, 60 wounded; six people killed at the Sikh temple this summer; and the day spa in Milwaukee, where three women were killed before the shooter turned the gun on himself. We had a horrific episode earlier in my congressional career in Springfield, Oregon.

It is hard to have meaningful conversations on a variety of subjects. I was going to deal with that problem with the fiscal cliff today, but gun violence is another area in America where it seems we can't have a discussion without delusional claims of overreach and taking away hunting rifles. Congress won't even allow statistics on gun violence to be gathered, and we certainly have made no progress towards closing the gun show loophole.

Yet I come today, in the aftermath of this tragedy, with a small ray of hope. When nearly half of all military suicides are committed with privately owned weapons, the Pentagon and Congress are moving towards establishing policies to separate at-risk servicemembers from personal private weapons. Congress is poised to enact legislation to end a prohibition about the military collecting information about firearms kept at home. These are simple, commonsense steps for an armed services where more military personnel take their own life than who die in battle.

Perhaps if we can take these reasonable steps to protect our servicemen and their families, perhaps we can develop the courage to treat the epidemic of gun violence with the same thoughtful, small steps when it comes to protecting the rest of our families. Until then, we will mourn the victims and thank God that our families were not at that mall.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, in my district at the Clackamas Town Center, a masked gunman with a stolen semi-automatic rifle discharged some 60 shots. He killed two people, wounded a 15- year-old girl, and then took his own life. This terrible tragedy could have been far worse, as the gunman had several fully loaded magazines and there were over 10,000 people shopping and working in the shopping center.

The police were on the scene in 1 minute. Countless lives were saved due to careful preparation, emergency procedures, and the courage and foresight of law enforcement and the General Growth Properties mall management.

My colleagues from Oregon and I would ask that the House observe a moment of silence in the memory of the victims, Steve Forsyth and Cindy Ann Yuille, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of hyperactive rhetoric about the fiscal cliff and the trouble ahead. The fact is that people should just take a deep breath and focus on where we are and where we need to go.

First of all, it's not a fiscal cliff but a slope. There are many opportunities for us in the weeks ahead to be able to change the unsustainable trajectory of America's financial future. There are many efforts already evident and people taking steps to try to cope with it.

The President campaigned very explicitly on raising the top tax rates. It was something that was embraced by Democrats running for the Senate and virtually all of them running for the House. The President won. The Senate actually increased in Democratic numbers. There were more Democrats added to the House. And more Americans voted for the President and his vision, for the Senate Democrats, and for Democrats in the House than my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle.

It's encouraging that the President has decided that he's no longer going to negotiate with himself. He's laid out his positions and has encouraged a response. I, for one, was pleased that there was a proposal offered up by my Republican friends, signed not just by the Speaker but the entire Republican leadership. While it still does not have the specifics about what those elusive tax loopholes that they want to close are, which will raise sufficient revenue, I find this an encouraging sign that there is an effort, for the first time, to put something back, and I think there are opportunities for people to flesh out the details. There is an opportunity for tax reform; our system now is not efficient. It's chaotic. It's expensive. It's unfair and perplexing. There is an opportunity for us going forward to add a little more rationality to it while it raises more revenue.

There are countless opportunities in the Department of Defense to save money, starting with $250 billion in the nuclear arsenal for weapons that we will never use and don't need. There are opportunities for agricultural reform. And it's been my pleasure to work on bipartisan reform efforts with Senator-elect Jeff Flake of Arizona and my friend from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. And there are real opportunities in health care.

Now I hope my Republican friends will stop the charade we went through this last 2 years repealing ObamaCare some 37 times. That train has left the station. The President was reelected. It's not going to be repealed. The Supreme Court has decided that it's constitutional. And most of the major health care players are busy at work implementing health care reform. But we have barely scratched the surface of the ability to squeeze more value out of the health care system.

The United States does not have to spend nearly twice as much as all the other developed countries and actually have health care results that, on average, are worse than our European and Japanese friends.

We have the best health care in the world for some Americans. But too many are denied regular health care, and others are paying too much for results that aren't good enough.

We know what to do: embedded in the health care reform act are elements of reform that used to have bipartisan support, starting with the mandate that was cosponsored by 16 Republican Senators, elements of reform that were implemented by Republican and Democratic Governors alike, including Governor Romney. It's time for us to act on those elements, to accelerate the reform.

I note with no small amount of irony that the $716 billion that the Republican ticket, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan, used to campaign against the President, Paul Ryan's budget included the same reductions, and it's likely that they will be in his budget that's coming forward.

Let's act on things that we agree. Let's rebuild and renew America and find ways to save money and put us on the path to fiscal responsibility that the American public needs and demands.

Mr. Speaker, Mitt Romney weathered a storm of criticism late in the campaign after Hurricane Sandy for his earlier comments about privatizing FEMA and turning responsibility back to State and local governments. But during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in earnest. How big do

you want your FEMA to be, how generous your disaster relief payments, and how much do you want to pay?

In today's New York Times op-ed section, there is an article that points out the potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 trillion, second only to the liability for Social Security. Right now, we have arguably the worst of both worlds. The Federal Government responds to disaster, usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. We provide Federal money to put people back in harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future, risky development worse. We often take remedial action like fortifying beaches, a temporary solution that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding down river. By giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas, and the vicious cycle is repeated with untold damage to families, with loss of life, loss of property, disruption of business.

Perhaps we'd be better off if we began with a serious conversation about what people expect from FEMA and heavily subsidized flood insurance.

What if the balance of responsibility between individuals, local, State, and Federal governments were analyzed?

What if we required individual property owners to assume more of the cost of disaster mitigation and recovery by paying the full cost of their flood insurance premiums and having recovery benefits provided on a declining scale after repetitive incidents?

What if local developers were required to insure their buildings withstood the cost of certain foreseeable disaster events? Would they be less likely to pressure local governments to approve risky development proposals?

If individual homeowners absorbed more of their cost with slightly higher home prices, would it make it less likely that they're going to be buying homes in dangerous locations?

Shouldn't local governments be required to have stronger zoning and building codes to make loss less likely and recovery less expensive? What if these local governments were put on notice that when they invest in infrastructure, that the Federal disaster relief is only going to cover a portion of the loss and that portion will decline with increasing frequency of events?

While there appears to be little appetite for overall Federal control, there ought to be even less appetite for the Federal Government to pay for the failure of local control to plan, zone, enact, and enforce strong code provisions and consumer protection. The notion that this is all going to be a one-way street for the Federal taxpayer to pay for repetitive disaster costs is something that needs to be challenged and rejected out of hand.

Make no mistake; I think it would be foolish to privatize FEMA because there is a need for Federal response to true disasters. That's precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able to pay the full cost of recovery. They need money, personnel, and assistance, but that doesn't mean a permanent entitlement to risky behavior. The Federal Government should deal with what is truly catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. Families obviously should not be left destitute, hungry, and homeless in the aftermath of natural disaster. There is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition of these terrible events.

In a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should include government disaster spending, liability and development policy as we address the fiscal cliff. Done right, this will not only save money, but countless lives, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and I identify with a number of the reservations that he mentioned about this legislation.

A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly 12 million immigrants, who, for the most part, are already part of the fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often already integrated into existing families.

A consequence of this recent election may well be a new reality on the American political scene when it comes to immigration, a willingness to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more thoughtful direction. We are already hearing some of these signals from the Senate this week. In a small way, the legislation before us today may provide an additional opportunity to move forward.

I voted against its earlier incarnation--reluctantly--because it was designed to fail. While I will vote today against the rule, tomorrow I will be voting for the legislation which would create the STEM Visa program and give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and masters graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields. Dealing with this in regular order is encouraging. The bill was also made marginally better. I think we have an opportunity here for us all to help break this logjam. Creating a STEM Visa program should be a no-brainer.

This legislation is certainly not perfect, and I agree, as I mentioned, with some of the reservations that have been advanced. Frankly, unless our objections are addressed, it will not pass the Senate. We don't support the philosophy that immigration needs to be zero sum. We need not eliminate the Diversity Visa program in order to add this program. The Senate, as I said, will fix these provisions, if they take it up at all. Frankly, I hope they do take it up and they do fix it. This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we can and must move forward on broader immigration reform, like the comprehensive immigration reform, that Senator McCain previously supported with the late-Senator Kennedy.

America needs to unite families, to protect and give justice to young people, strengthen business from high tech to agriculture and help us live up to our ideals as a Nation of immigrants.

A costly, inhumane, and broken immigration system is a shadow over the American landscape. The current system denies the reality of nearly 12 million immigrants, who for the most part are already part of the fabric of American life. They work in American business and are often already integrated into existing families. Strengthening and expanding legal immigration even helps grow our economy. Conservative economists for the Cato Institute project that a comprehensive imigration reform with a pathway to citizenship would add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over 10 years. Unfortunately, rational immigration policy has fallen victim to some of the most extreme political cross currents in our country which not only deny our roots, but violate fundamental fairness and reality.

Recent immigration legislation is costly, inefficient, and cruel as it relates to families already here. Young people brought here as children who know no other life and are American in every sense, but are still denied the American dream.

A consequence of the election may well be a new reality on the American political scene when it comes to immigration and a willingness to soften hard-edged positions and move us in a more thoughtful direction.

There have been shifts in public attitude embracing comprehensive solutions for some time, but in the political arena this is a more recent phenomenon. It will take time to do this right, but a willingness by some on the other side of the aisle to offer their own version of the DREAM Act in the Senate, for example, is reason for optimism.

While I strongly support a comprehensive solution that provides a path to citizenship for people who are willing to play by the rules, work hard, pay their taxes, and demonstrate citizenship skills, there are two intermediate steps that should get us moving in the right direction. The DREAM Act and the creation of a STEM visa program should be low-hanging fruit that almost everyone can embrace.

The deferred action announced by the administration to give a sliver of hope to these bright young people who study hard and play by the rules and who are good citizens was a good step but should be followed by early action on the DREAM Act. I am proud this was passed by the previous Congress and I hope it will be the first order of business in the new Congress. These young people are the lifeblood of America's future and we should welcome them and do everything possible to ensure their success.

I will vote for H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act, which creates a STEM visa program and would give 55,000 green cards a year to doctoral and master's graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematical fields. I reluctantly voted against this in September because it was brought forward as a last minute suspension bill designed to fail and create unnecessary political divisions. This time, dealing with this in regular order is encouraging. It was also made marginally better. For example, the new version of the legislation decreases the wait time for certain spouses and children who are planning to join their loved ones with permanent residency in the United States. It also removed a concerning provision that forced STEM visa applicants to commit to working in the United States for five years. While prospects in the Senate are still dim, the most important change has been the willingness of my friends on the other side of the aisle to take another look at immigration and maybe dial down the political rhetoric. I was personally willing to meet them halfway.

Creating a STEM visa program should be a no-brainer. It will make a huge difference in keeping the best and brightest from around the world in the United States. These students come to our colleges and universities to receive the best education available and it is insane to send them back home or to other countries if they want to stay here. It has been said that we should staple a green card to every diploma for an advanced degree. We should certainly do whatever is necessary for appropriate verification to ensure national security, but the overwhelming majority should be welcome to reside, be productive, create families, and support businesses right here.

The legislation is certainly not perfect and unless our objection is addressed will not pass the Senate. We need comprehensive immigration overhaul, not a piecemeal approach. I also do not support the philosophy that immigration needs to remain zero-sum: we should not need to eliminate the diversity visa in order to add this program. I am confident the Senate will fix these provisions.

This would be an important signal to the next Congress that we can and must move forward on broader immigration reform. America needs to unite families, to protect and give justice to young people, strengthen business from high-tech to agriculture, and help us live up to our ideals as a Nation of immigrants.

Perhaps one of the best parts of serving in Congress is the access to our Library, the Library of Congress, the dedicated staff at CRS, and the magnificent Members Reading Room. The Library of Congress is truly a national treasure; and leading the Library of Congress is another national treasure, Dr. James Billington, who had a long and distinguished career as scholar and institutional leader before assuming leadership of the Library of Congress 25 years ago.

As chair of the Library of Congress Caucus, it's been a great pleasure to work with Dr. Billington and his outstanding staff on a variety of issues and activities for Members of Congress. The caucus urges you to join Speaker Boehner today in the Rayburn Room at 11 a.m. as he honors Dr. James Billington and his exemplary quarter century of leadership as the Librarian of Congress.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

You have heard and you will continue to hear how important it is to pass this legislation to level the playing field for the United States and our businesses that seek to do business with Russia, one of the 10 largest economies in the world. This provides us an additional tool to make sure that our friends in Russia play by the rules.

Now, while one of the Presidential candidates talked about Russia being the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States, I think it's clear that times have in fact changed. The relationship between the United States and the former Soviet Union has been dramatically altered. Russia is an opportunity for us--it's a challenge. We have differences of opinion. There are issues

that we, frankly, need their cooperation. There are others that we're pushing back a little bit. But it is far better to be engaged in economic competition and cooperation to help build those bridges.

Speaking of bridges, I think it's encouraging to watch the debate on this floor today. It's been my pleasure to be involved with a variety of them over the years, but this is one where there is commonality, where there's consensus, where we're working together to move forward. I hope this forms a pattern by which we will be able to have future success in critical, thoughtful trade policy crafting in the future. The American economy needs it.

For years, I have traveled the country preaching ``bike-partisanship,'' using bicycle and pedestrian facilities to help people burn calories, not fossil fuel, improve their health, have fun, and enrich the community. Red State, blue State, Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn't matter; the public gets it and has been part of an amazing renaissance. Let's redouble our efforts at creating a stronger Federal partnership to help more communities realize this vision.

But let's not stop with bike-partisanship. Are there other areas that are low or no cost that enjoy broad public support, solve problems, and bring people

together rather than divide them? What about rebuilding and renewing America? Certainly the need is there.

Until recently, the T&I Committee was an island of congressional consensus. Since we merely extended the last transportation reauthorization and the new Congress must act in about 97 weeks, let's work on a bolder vision of investing in America, one that puts people to work, improves the economy, the environment, and saves money in the long run. Congress can begin on this now.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Congress can't ignore the near bankrupt flood insurance program. While we fix the short-term problems, however, let's make it more effective, efficient, and actuarially sound so that it will spare lives, property, and the Federal Treasury. Overhauling the flood insurance program would solve the most immediate challenges caused by extreme weather events likely due to global warming. We may even be able to discuss climate change in a more thoughtful and rational way.

Based on the work I've done in the past with Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator-elect Jeff Flake, I know agricultural reform is a ripe opportunity. Taxpayers cannot afford to lavish unnecessary subsidies on large agribusiness while harming the environment and shortchanging small farmers and ranchers.

Surely Tea Party Republicans and members of the Progressive Caucus can come together to improve nutrition, wildlife habitats, hunting, and fishing while strengthening family farms.

And since Big Bird dodged a bullet during the Presidential campaign, maybe it's time to address the vital role that the Federal support for public broadcasting plays, which we all rely on--not just for news and information, but education for our kids and, as illustrated by Hurricane Sandy, emergency communication.

With incredibly broad public support from Americans regardless of political party, Congress should make a long-term financial commitment to funding the most trusted brand in broadcasting so it can plan for the future.

The last 10 years have been characterized by bipartisan cooperation to promote access to safe drinking water and sanitation around the globe. My 2005 legislation, cosponsored by Henry Hyde, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, saved lives and made friends for America.

In this Congress we have another bipartisan bill, Water for the World, which is cosponsored by my friend Ted Poe, which would build on that foundation and accelerate progress. It's all teed up and ready to go and could be easily passed next week.

Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of Americans think getting full information about their situation as a loved one faces the end of life should be a top priority for health care. Before the 2009 political ``lie of the year'' about ``death panels,'' this provision in the health care reform enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

There is new legislation to personalize people's health care so that they get the information they need to make these difficult, sometimes painful, decisions and make sure their decisions, whatever they are, are respected by doctors and hospitals. This refined legislation could easily be achieved now that we're implementing health care reform.

These are all bipartisan, cost-effective initiatives that are overwhelmingly embraced by the public. Is it perhaps time to have a Legislators' Caucus, where Members in both parties who just want to get something done can come together with ideas like these? Who knows? Working together to get something done might become habit-forming.