Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on H.R. 3409, the so-called ``Stop the War on Coal'' bill. am strongly opposed to this legislation and joined many of my colleagues in voting against it, because it endangers our environment, the public's health, and the stability of the American auto industry.

While this bill is about much more than just coal, I want to take a moment to be clear about my position on coal: it is an energy source from our past, not for our future. We must reduce our reliance on coal for generating electricity at home and abroad. I have long been fighting to protect and strengthen the Clean Air Act.

Predictable enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act helps protect our health, keep our air and water clean, and provides regulatory certainty to American businesses. As countries around the world strengthen their environmental protections, it is concerning to watch the United States move backwards. Not only does this bill restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's power to protect public health, but it changes the regulatory process to blatantly prioritize profits over human health. It also rolls back an industry-negotiated agreement to strengthen tailpipe emission standards.

I supported many of the attempts to improve this bill, including an amendment to implement a renewable energy standard, an amendment to require a study on the public health impacts of coal dust, and an amendment to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to take action under the Clean Air Act when such action would reduce our reliance on oil. Unfortunately, the Republican majority defeated all of these commonsense amendments.

We find ourselves in this debate due to the lack of comprehensive national policies on energy and global warming. The actions we should take now would help us move forward into the clean energy economy; instead of focusing on the past. We should lead by example and enforce the Clean Air Act against older, inefficient plants to make them clean up or shut down. We should enforce the Clean Water Act to restrict or shut down mountain top removal coal mining. When the economy strengthens, we should enact a carbon tax to discourage the production and export of our carbon pollution. And finally, we should fight for international action global greenhouse gas emissions so that emerging global economies do not destabilize the global climate.

While this bill is upsetting enough on its own, it is particularly frustrating given the work that Congress has failed to do this session. We have yet to address tax reform, the looming budget sequestration, or even the Farm Bill. Instead, Republican leadership has decided to spend this week to vote on policies that we have already voted on several times, and that have no chance of becoming law.

I offered an amendment to strike the language in H.R. 3409 and replace it with broadly supported, bipartisan language to extend the Production Tax Credit. This language would have helped protect tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs across the country, and helped move the United States into the clean energy economy. I am frustrated that we did not have a chance to vote on that important amendment, which would have created jobs in Oregon, strengthened United States manufacturers, and improved our public health and our environment.

Mr. Speaker, today, with many of my colleagues, I voted to oppose H.R. 6429 introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith. While I strongly support creating a STEM Visa program, and cosponsor Rep. Lofgren's H.R. 6412, the Attracting the Best and the Brightest Act of 2012, the bill brought to the floor today was a partisan, unserious approach to a serious question. It was a last-minute suspension bill designed to fail. It unnecessarily raises questions about its application and divides Congress when it should bring us together.

We need serious comprehensive immigration reform. Legislation that creates a STEM Visa program should be low-hanging fruit that builds momentum toward this goal. H.R. 6429 however, creates unnecessary divisions. Not only will it never be enacted into law but it sets us back on both this issue and the larger goal of immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I voted against H.R. 5987, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act. I recognize that the Manhattan Project played an important role in the United States' energy history and has had a significant impact in the Pacific Northwest, and it makes sense for us to draw attention to places like Hanford, Washington. However, adding these responsibilities to the National Park Service's portfolio when the agency is already underfunded and overworked does not make sense.

It is frustrating to me that while we are told by the current House majority that there is not

sufficient funding to clean up nuclear sites such as Hanford, there is apparently enough funding to turn the Manhattan Project into a national park. We should focus first on making sure these places are safe for the human and wildlife populations that live near them, before marketing them as a tourist destination.

Mr. Speaker, there have been two struggles to make American democracy work. First was who would be eligible to vote. Originally, only those who were white, male, property owners over 21, voted, perhaps a quarter of the population.

More than three-quarters of a century later, having fought the civil war, African Americans were granted the franchise. It would be another two-thirds of a century before voting rights were extended to women.

Finally, in a battle that I was proud to be a part of as a college student, campaigning and testifying before Congress, we adopted the XXVI amendment, extending the voting rights to young people at age 18.

But there's always been another battle: Who amongst the theoretically eligible voters are actually able to cast their ballot and have it counted?

It's no secret the States in the Old South waged a brutal extra-legal war to prevent newly enfranchised African Americans from voting. The discrimination, intimidation and violence are well-chronicled; and it's why, almost a century after African Americans were given the legal right to vote, we still need the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to really give them the vote supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution.

Despite the Voting Rights Act, and two centuries of struggle, there's still

a battle today. Part of the Republican game plan for 2012 is to make voting difficult or impossible for some of the same groups who have long suffered discrimination, who are now seriously disadvantaged by new voter suppression laws that have been passed by Republicans in States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Because voter fraud is a Federal offense, with serious legal consequences, even jail time, improperly cast ballots are virtually nonexistent in the United States. There are far more votes that are lost due to malfunctioning voting machines, mistakes and sleight-of- hand by local elected officials who are either inept or cheating than are all the cases that have been documented nationwide.

Texas has another effort to pass aggressive voter ID legislation, but they can find only five documented incidents of voter fraud in 13 million ballots cast in the last two elections.

In Pennsylvania, there have been fewer cases than you can count on your fingers, yet up to a million people may be denied the right to vote because of these legal changes.

Millions of poor, elderly, minority and student voters don't have passports or driver's licenses; some don't even have birth certificates. They may face the modern version of a poll tax, and that's unconscionable.

The media and courts are pushing back on some of the more outrageous behaviors, like Ohio's Secretary of State, John Husted, who was called out and forced to back down after he tried to limit early voting in counties with Democrats in the majority, while expanding them in Republican counties.

Come election day, the problems will still persist. There is a solution: pry partisan fingers off the controls of a varied election process. We shouldn't be treating the precious right to vote as a game where partisan advantage comes at the expense of our civil rights.

Oregon has been involved for 25 years with what is no longer an experiment but a display of a better way: vote by mail. Each registered voter in the Oregon is mailed a ballot to their residence 19 days before the election. They are given well over 400 hours to examine the ballot, make their decision on the issues and individuals, and return it by mail or in person.

Oregonians don't worry about people gaming voting machines, closing precincts early, having long lines for working people at the end of the day, or mysteriously running out of ballots at precincts that are likely to vote against you. In Oregon, there's no problem with illegal voting. Everybody has access to the ballot, and results are processed in a timely fashion.

It's shameful that, after more than two centuries of struggle for the right to vote, we're still playing games with people's opportunity to exercise that hard-won privilege upon which our democratic tradition rests.

I will be championing the Oregon solution of vote by mail to make the process simpler, more reliable, most important, fairer, while saving money in the process. I hope these blatant attempts at manipulation and discrimination backfire so that the next Congress and the administration are positioned to do something about it.

A country that prides itself as the oldest democracy deserves for the democratic process to work.

Mr. Speaker, today, together with a group of bipartisan cosponsors,

I am proud to introduce the Medicare transitional Care Act of 2012, legislation to aid patient transitions from one care setting to another within our health care system. The legislation will improve patient health outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions, and save valuable healthcare resources.

When people leave the hospital after an operation or illness, they are often overwhelmed by a complicated and risky road to recovery. Patients frequently report difficulty remembering clinical instructions, confusion over medications, and in cases where multiple providers are involved, can receive conflicting instructions from different providers.

A study published in April 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that almost one third of Medicare beneficiaries studied who were discharged from a hospital were re-hospitalized within 90 days. Additionally, one-half of the individuals re-hospitalized had not visited a physician since their discharge, suggesting a lack of follow- up care. The study estimated that Medicare spent $17.4 billion in 2004 on unplanned re-hospitalizations.

In its June 2012 Report, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, highlighted the need for an explicit payment for transitional care services, given the documented evidence that effective and coordinated care transitions improve health outcomes, reduce readmission rates, and generate significant savings to the U.S. health care system. The Congressional Budget Office has echoed these findings. In a report documenting lessons from Medicare's demonstration projects, the CBO emphasized that ``programs that smoothed transitions (for example, by providing additional education and support to patients moving from a hospital to a nursing facility or between a primary care provider and a specialist) tended to have fewer hospital admissions.''

There are some well-established and peer-reviewed programs that could be adopted. For example, the Transitions Care Model, which assigns a transitional care nurse during the transition period, has resulted in cost savings of approximately $5,000 per patient. Other models also have demonstrated savings, such as the Care Transitions Intervention model, which provides patients with a transitions coach and self- management tools, has reduced hospital readmission rates from 20 percent to 12.8 percent, while Project Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions, BOOST, which provides hospitals with management tools and mentoring programs to improve the discharge transition process, resulted in lower rates of mortality and 30-day readmissions rates dropped from 25.5 percent to 8.5 percent for those under age 70.

It is our hope that stakeholders involved in the care delivery system will carefully evaluate this legislation and provide comments or suggested improvements to me and the other sponsors. We are interested in ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to the different circumstances and settings in which these transitions occur.

Providing a transitional care benefit within Medicare will help coordinate care, develop a care plan for patients and their caregivers, identify potential health risks, and prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. I thank my cosponsors and look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, due to the birth of my daughter's first child, my first grandchild, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes on Thursday afternoon and Friday, September 13 and 14, 2012. Had I been present for votes those days, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 576: I would have voted in favor of the Van Hollen motion to recommit with instructions, legislation that would eliminate sequestration entirely, provided that subsequent deficit reduction is enacted that equals or exceeds sequestration's deficit reduction over 10 years. The Motion would also provide that such subsequent deficit reduction legislation be balanced by requiring upper income taxpayers pay their fair share, protecting middle class tax cuts, and including targeted spending cuts.

Rollcall vote 577: I would have voted against H.R. 6365 that would irresponsibly have offered a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction and placed the enormous burden of those cuts solely on the non-defense discretionary budget and, by extension, squarely on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Rollcall vote 578: I would have voted in favor of the Barber motion to recommit that would add a provision to the bill that extends the funding for Military, Reserve, and National Guard personnel for the full fiscal year, as well as extending coverage of disability examinations and the treatment and additional services for homeless and mentally ill veterans.

Rollcall vote 579: Despite certain reservations, I would have voted in favor of H.J. Res. 117--Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 to continue funding the government's operations for six additional months.

Rollcall vote 580: I would have voted in favor of S. 3245 bill to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program.

Rollcall vote 581: I would have voted in favor of the DeGette Amendment to make changes to the findings section of the bill, demonstrating that the loan restructuring complied with the law and highlighting that the projects funded to date are expected to create 60,000 jobs.

Rollcall vote 582: I would have voted in favor of the Waxman Amendment allowing the program to continue to provide financing to innovative energy projects.

Rollcall vote 583: I would have voted in favor of the Motion to Recommit, which would require that 75 percent of any materials used in projects receiving funding under the Incentives for Innovative Technologies program be produced in the United States. In addition, the Motion to Recommit would require the enactment of H.R. 6213 to be contingent on extension of the Production Tax Credit, which would further stimulate the clean energy economy.

Rollcall vote 584: I would have voted against H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, which arbitrarily picks winners and losers in the alternative energy field. By setting a cut-off date of December 30, 2011, House Republicans are prioritizing older technologies--those most likely to fail--at the expense of newer, more innovative projects.

In meeting with hundreds of constituents and dozens of small business this summer, one theme emerges repeatedly: The price that American families and small business continue to pay for the near collapse of our economy.

Earlier this year, new examples emerged of manipulation that was harmful, and in some cases potentially illegal, by Wall Street in New York and Fleet Street in London. Financial interests continue their assault on even modest reforms in the Dodd-Frank financial legislation protections for consumers and for the financial system itself. Now, clearly, the elements are a little overly complex and not perfect, but, in part, that's the result of aggressive action from the industry itself assaulting the regulatory process.

On the campaign trail, Governor Romney and his running mate argue for less protection and a return to largely self-regulation of banks that nearly brought the global economy to its knees.

At the same time, the Republican Party's response to the challenges of the mountain of student debt is first to reduce the funding for Pell Grants that help make college more affordable for low-income students, and then they would help fewer student borrowers but help more bankers by giving the lending business back to the private sector--backed by a government guarantee, by the way. Hardly a free-market solution.

Governor Romney famously pointed out that if this doesn't work for you, you can always borrow from your parents. I think most people, not just Republicans or Democrats, Independents, believe that's not the solution. It's more of the problem, even for those students who have parents that could finance them.

There are things that we can do. We should, of course, fight to protect the reforms and the restraints on Wall Street and protect direct, lower-cost lending to college students, but we also might inject a little more competition into the financial marketplace.

Now, for millions of Americans, a little competition to the big banks comes from credit unions who are more on the scale of a community bank. Most are small to medium-sized, very local, and nonprofit, with a volunteer, membership board of directors.

That nonprofit status is important. They not only don't pay taxes; they're not paying dividends to stockholders or multimillion dollar bonuses to CEOs. They use that advantage to lower costs and improve service.

Credit unions are currently prohibited from lending more than 12.25 percent of their assets to business. Now legislation has been proposed to raise this lending cap to a little more than a quarter of the assets. That would be ideal for small business lending.

It wasn't the credit unions on Main Street that almost brought the economy to its knees; it was Wall Street gamblers and, too often, cheaters in the financial sector. They were skirting the law and, in some cases, breaking it. Maybe it's time that we give small businesses a boost by giving commercial banks a little competition.

I hope my colleagues will not just sponsor H.R. 1418, the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act of 2011, but also be an advocate. It will be a strong signal that we truly want competition in the financial arena, that actions have consequences, and small and emerging businesses are our priority. Let's give small business more choices for financing they need, and let's help credit unions get more capacity to meet that need.

Mr. Speaker, wind power is an American success story. It is one of our fastest growing manufacturing sectors, with over 500 American-based facilities. It provides us with clean, renewable energy that both consumers and the environment demand.

But, unfortunately, it is threatened with the production tax credit due to expire at the end of the year. I am pleased to join with my fellow Ways and Means Committee member, Dave Reichert, from the Northwest, as cosponsor of H.R. 3307, to extend the tax credit so that we don't lose as many as 37,000 jobs to the uncertainty.

Congress shouldn't wait until the end of the year because people need to make investment decisions now. Until we enact a comprehensive energy plan for this century, the production tax credit is key to our energy future: clean, dependable, very low operating cost wind energy.

Please join us as we work to guarantee this production tax credit for our economy and our energy security.

I thank Ranking Member Conyers for his courtesy.

For over a decade, I have deeply been concerned about the potential overreach of wiretapping legislation and efforts at the NSA. I have voted repeatedly in the past against unreasonable expansion of any administration's ability to intrude in the lives of unknowing and innocent Americans, and I will do so again today.

I remain confident that the dedicated members of the intelligence community do not need to erode the rights of Americans in order to protect them. Any apparent gains in security that may be achieved are modest and more than outweighed by longer-term potential loss of civil liberties and oversight, the sense of security that each American deserves. I'm troubled by the implications for our Fourth Amendment rights, the absence of meaningful court review, and the risk to American liberties that stem from the FISA Amendments Act.

Frankly I see no reason to rush into voting on a bill so deficient. The American people would be better served if we continued the debate and the examination, had thorough answers from NSA, and took up reauthorization based on a more complete review and process.

In fact, I think as we stand here today on the floor, not even the NSA knows the extent to which the FISA Amendment Act may potentially have been abused. The right approach would be refining this bill and more broadly taking a closer look at what over the last decade has become an intelligence community that is, frankly, some feel, growing out of control.

It's been over 11 years since 9/11. We ought to be able to get this right. We shouldn't be rushed into doing something that has significant long-term implications for every American.

You know, take a deep breath and take a step back. There are over 4.2 million Americans who hold a security clearance. That's more than the entire State of Oregon's population, and let's throw in the city of Seattle for good measure. Almost half of them hold Top Secret security clearances, more than people who reside in Maine or Idaho. When you've got those millions of people, you have an entity that is cumbersome, potential for abuse, and, frankly, potential to be infiltrated or have mistakes.

Think about it: 9/11 occurred in part not because we didn't have information. Remember the memo on Bush's desk warning of a potential attack from bin Laden?

What we are doing at the same time we are eroding American rights? We're piling on more and more and more information, and it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to sort through. We risk putting Americans in trouble.

Mr. Speaker, we return to Capitol Hill, ending the summer recess with strong conflicting emotions. Today is the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the horrific attacks that rocked the Nation and were especially poignant for us on Capitol Hill.

As representatives of the government we had sworn to uphold and defend, these senseless, despicable acts exposed a real vulnerability. We all remember what we felt as we were watching the Twin Towers collapse, the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then yet another plane going down in a lonely field in Pennsylvania, destined for us here on Capitol Hill.

People came together in an outpouring of support for one another and for our Nation. There was a sense of resolve, unparalleled at any time since the cowardly attacks on Pearl Harbor.

The response of the government since then, however, has been somewhat mixed. We have protected the United States so far against any repeat attack, but at great cost. We have thrown money at the problem. We have had significant bureaucratic overreach, particularly in terms of personal liberties. We will be paying the costs of the horribly misguided war in Iraq for generations to come.

After an original, terrific response routing the Taliban in Afghanistan, we took our eye off the ball. We allowed Osama bin Laden almost another decade of life and mischief. Later, we were sucked back into Afghanistan on the terms of the Taliban and al Qaeda, not on our terms.

Now, this is not merely a Republican problem, although George Bush and Republicans were in charge and made some of the worst mistakes. There was much bipartisan support for the excesses.

To this day, there is bipartisan confusion about the best path forward to protect the Nation while protecting civil liberties and the budget for the situation today and not the conditions of September 10, 2001. My wish for Congress and for the candidates span out on the campaign trails, is that we mark this anniversary with a commitment to allow a little common sense and good will to enter into the political discourse.

This can be an emotional job. I was thinking about the emotions that I expressed, having a chance 15 years ago to go through the hectoring and interfering military on Aung San Suu Kyi's compound in Burma, where she was held under house arrest by the dictatorship. My son, daughter, and I spent an amazing afternoon with this extraordinary woman. I could scarcely imagine then, what will happen next week when we will be awarding that courageous woman the Congressional Medal of Honor here in the Capitol and then she will return to Burma as a member of their nation's parliament.

The success of this woman, together with the steely resolve of the American public after 9/11, ought to give us all pause and, hopefully, a renewed commitment to do our job right. Since 9/11, the challenges and circumstances have evolved. We have greater challenges in terms of security, climate instability, natural disaster, and our own economic vulnerability. It's a tall order to deal with them; but, hopefully, we will all be inspired by the example of Aung San Suu Kyi standing up to the Burmese dictatorship and ultimately gaining a measure of success-- and, of course, by the American public in their response to horrific attacks of 9/11.

It's time today, for the politicians to do their job: to listen, to speak the truth, and to lead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Powell's Bookstore, a Portland landmark, on the occasion of its 41st anniversary.

One of the benefits of my job is an opportunity to become a part of a lot of exciting events: Groundbreakings, anniversaries, ribbon- cuttings, commencement speeches. On August 25th, in Portland, I shared a truly unique moment. It's one of the reasons why people come from all over the world to share in the Portland experience. No tour of Portland is complete without a visit to Powell's City of Books. This is not just because this bookstore is the one attraction in Portland that's open 365 days a year, and bad weather doesn't stop you. In fact bad weather makes the trip to Powell's even more fun. It's iconic but I think few people really understand why and how it got to be that way.

Portland is the livability capital of the United States. And livability is about things like bikes and beer, about restaurants that are locally owned, gluten-free organic and free-range with everything sourced from less than four blocks from the restaurant. It's a powerful concept, to be local, human-scale and high quality.

Think about Powell's. It's local in the extreme, but it's been on the web for almost 20 years now. The staff is amazing! It's full of Reed college double majors in physics and philosophy who are members of the longshoreman's union and speak Swahili and Gaelic.

It's probably the best place in Portland for a first date. You really get to know someone wandering through the stacks at Powell's with them. It's a great place to ditch a kid for a long period of time, although that sometimes makes Michael and the staff a little nervous. It is the ultimate Christmas experience as all of the last-minute shoppers flock here. It's not just what you get, it's what you do, sharing in the frenzy of the wild-eyed, strange people who are wandering the aisles at the last moment.

Powell's is uniquely Portland because it is a family enterprise. On August 25th, I was joined by Alice Powell who is Michael's partner in life and a professional in terms of counseling that I think often has helped move the institution along. There may have been a few moments in the history of taking risks in this enterprise where maybe another income made a difference.

Michael Powell is a shy semi-curmudgeon, so it's hard to tell about all the contributions that Michael has made to the community. It's not just about his business. He's one of the people who understand that what's good for the community is good for his business, and what's good for his business is good for his community. For the better part of these 40 years, I've had a chance to work with him on a wide variety of projects, from parks and planning, to transportation and downtown development. Michael has helped lead the charge for business people to tax themselves to improve the quality of the downtown experience. For 20 years he's been not just active, but a leader, in bringing the streetcar to Portland and then expanding it. Because of Michael's efforts, the streetcar is one of those experiences that make Portland unique.

Now with their daughter Emily, it's been three generations of Powell's involved with this institution going head-to-head against the big chain establishments. With all the changes in publishing, all the changes in the economy, they've been a constant. Powell's has been a leader in ways that have made a big difference to us all.

I was asked to share a memory of Powell's, which was kind of hard because I've got so many of them over the years.

There is one experience that stands out. I love books. I'm a library junkie. I have my own study carrel in the Library of Congress, perhaps the most magnificent building in Washington, DC. I was having a tour for some Oregonians that were in town, going through the Library of Congress. We went up the staircase to look over that magnificent reading room, just a spectacular sight. It is hard to believe that it was built by the Corps of Engineers over 100 years ago.

While we're standing there, looking down at the reading room, there were people from another tour crowding behind the Plexiglas, quietly oohing and ahhing. I turn to my right and there's someone wearing a Powell's City of Books t-shirt. I interrupt to say, ``That's cool, I'm from Portland, I represent the Powell's.'' Before you know it, the whole tour is disrupted because people are noticing the Powell's shirt and they're talking about how much they love Powell's. I thought it was a perfect expression of what Powell's means to Portland and to people around the country. Congratulations on 41 years. Thank you for enriching our city and our experience. We look forward to many more years of your success.

Mr. Speaker, Today, a time of heightened tensions in U.S.-Iran relations, I voted for the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, H.R. 1905, a balanced and serious approach towards ensuring Iran will never have nuclear weapons.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have firmly opposed the use of indiscriminate sanctions as a blunt tool of foreign policy, one often more successful as political fodder than as leverage to effect positive change.

The timing of previous Iran sanctions legislation was damaging, undermining the administration in the midst of complex, delicate discussions with Iran. Today, the circumstances have changed. Negotiations are stalled, and this legislation has been focused and toned-down, making it an asset, not a liability, for the administration as it works to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

A coherent and unified U.S. policy towards Iran is the best way to strengthen diplomacy, which remains the best, some say the only, way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This revised legislation-- based on input from a broad coalition, including the White House-- brings coherence and focused pressure to the negotiating table.

I commend Chairwoman Ros Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for producing a bill that is based on policy, not politics. There were extreme voices pushing to include some very harsh language that, for example, would have made the few currently permitted humanitarian transactions with Iranian financial institutions illegal. To the benefit of the U.S. and innocent Iranian civilians, these provisions were left out.

Another critical change to this legislation is language that clarifies in the Act is not an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria.

The resolution would provide the administration with additional leverage for their broader diplomatic effort. Sanctions are effective when it is clear that if concessions are made, the other side has the ability to reciprocate by easing elements of the sanctions regime. This bill provides the administration with such flexibility.

In the midst of negotiations yet to yield progress, focused sanctions that unite both Congress and the executive provides leverage that increases the likelihood of success, and an alternative to military action, which our nation can ill-afford and which I oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6169, a partisan bill that would put in place a contrived and expedited procedure for tax reform, a challenging issue that would benefit from a full and robust debate.

Tax reform is a very complicated, very difficult endeavor. This bill, which attempts to limit debate in both the House and the Senate, will not become law. It wastes time that the House could better apply to the multitude of challenges facing our country.

Over the past several years, taxes have been lower than at any time since the 1950s. Yet the United States--with military commitments around the world, a badly underfunded commitment to domestic infrastructure, and growing obligations to the Baby Boomer generation-- also faces a substantial budget deficit. We are also grappling with a yawning gap between our wealthiest and our neediest. Tax expenditures have grown faster than the rate of inflation and now give away nearly half of all income that the income tax would otherwise collect.

It is imperative that Congress begin the difficult work of tax reform in earnest. This bill represents a failure to have an honest conversation about tax reform and for that reason, I oppose this legislation and had I been present, I would have voted no.

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

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

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

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act creates a deficit-neutral, consistent, and firewalled trust fund to help states replace, repair, and rehabilitate critical wastewater treatment facilities. It will be financed by assessing small fees on a broad base of those who use water and contribute to pollution: water-based beverages, items disposed of in wastewater, and pharmaceuticals, which often wind up in wastewater systems.

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

These aging and outdated systems are not just a local problem, relevant only to a single neighborhood, city, county, or even state. Water does not obey county boundaries or even state lines, and it is a resource on which we all rely. The Federal Government should help fill the funding gaps that local communities and States cannot. The opportunity is now: There is significant State and local investment, interest rates are near an all-time low, and enacting this legislation, the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act, will leverage hundreds of billions of additional dollars.

The American public is already paying a disproportionate share of the costs of water infrastructure. Residential households have the least capacity to absorb additional costs during these difficult times, and they already face wildly escalating costs to deal with problems that they did not create. The voracious water demands of industry far outstrip household needs. In large measure, the Cokes of the world, the pharmaceutical companies, and industries that produce products that get flushed are the ones that accelerate water demand and complicate water treatment. Industries that profit by putting their products in the sewer systems--either by design or inadvertently--or who withdraw vast amounts of fresh water to make a profit should pay their fair share. Clean water is absolutely essential for these industries and the rest of the business community to function. A small fee to pay for water infrastructure upgrades would provide the business community far more in benefits than it would cost, and it could be used to leverage a broader range of investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a unique and special place. There are many political offices in America where one can get into office via accident or appointment, but every man and woman on this floor had to be elected by friends and neighbors to deal with the fiscal and economic health of the Nation, for giving voice to people's fears, aspirations, and dreams. I count every day of service in Congress as a gift. Our friend and colleague Steve LaTourette's announcement that he would not seek reelection should give pause to every one of us.

You often hear a person say they don't always agree with somebody but they respect them. With Steve LaTourette, that's true. Despite being in different political parties, I deeply respect and appreciate Steve's forthright opinions.

His focus on having the resources to rebuild and renew America is as refreshing as it is important. He's willing to call for increases in fees and taxes for infrastructure at the same time he pushes for responsible budget cutting and right-sizing government in a way that's going to pinch almost everyone. His approach is courageous and consistent and, ultimately, we will follow that balanced path.

He has a sense of justice and regular order, as when he took to the floor as a lonely voice arguing for due process on behalf of a disgraced former Member. He does what he believes in.

Another overused phrase in this body is ``wake-up call.'' But Steve's decision and announcement should be a wake-up call, a wake-up call to the majority party to think about what this portends for their ability to govern and what will happen when the political winds shift just a little, which they surely will. It's a wake-up call for the people on my side of the aisle that as we fight against what we think are shortsighted and destructive policies, we need to do so in a way that is fair. We all should look for opportunities to make a little progress on second- and third-tier issues that will help do some good while we build the capacity of this institution in bipartisan problem solving.

Most of all, this should be a wake-up call to the American public. Too many of us have allowed our political decisions to be outsourced as the political process increasingly is taken over by smaller and smaller groups of extreme opinion in primaries of both parties.

The Tea Party activists have gotten headlines this weekend in the Texas Senate primary, but the dynamic is known by both parties and potentially distorts the choices of candidates and of issues in the fall.

Some Members of Congress gain a little notoriety by virtue of vision or policy. Usually we get it by being outrageous and stark. Perhaps we are known at home and for groups that have interests that we work with, but the vast majority of us wouldn't register above ``margin of error'' on the larger stage of American national politics.

Steve, despite two decades of solid, distinguished service, his wit, good humor, and effectiveness--is like a number of us who may be characterized as an ``obscure Member of Congress.'' Yet I would argue Steve LaTourette should be on the radar screen of every American. His is a powerful message of an institution that needs serious readjustment.

Steve, his family, especially the younger children, will do just fine. I think he'll have a better job, spend more time with family and friends, and I think he'll live longer. But make no mistake, everybody should pay attention to his story, his career, and why he's leaving.

After a lifetime of solid, productive public service, if this leads to people's reconsidering how we do business and how the American public assesses whom they reward or punish, then our loss due to his retirement may be the most important contribution in his distinguished career.