Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, sometimes simple concepts are the most powerful.

Since the beginning of my career, I have seen the power of historic preservation as a key component to a liveable community that is rich and varied, not just merely the historic character, but the mixed uses, architectural diversity, human scale and function, economic development, jobs, and the creation of value.

Today, the National Trust for Historic Preservation will be announcing with their president, Stephanie Meeks, some of the most endangered places that we might lose, serving as a call to action. Our heritage matters.

That's why for over 35 years Federal Tax Code has granted special recognition to help with the cost of rehabilitating historic properties, and for good reason. Over 37,000 historic properties have been rehabilitated, have leveraged $90 billion in investment, and created 2 million jobs.

Historic preservation is good for the soul. People love the enhancement of historic properties, neighborhoods, and districts. It directly links people to who they are, helping us understand and appreciate our roots. It is very important that most people also appreciate historic preservation. That's why it serves as a magnet for tourists and other investors so that surrounding properties and neighborhoods can be strengthened.

It also strengthens the economy. The investment and its ripple effects create more tax revenue and avoid the cost of rundown property and blight. As a local official, for years I learned firsthand that it is hard and expensive to deal with deterioration of the building stock in the neighborhoods in which they are located.

Historic preservation is the best option for the environment. Recycling a building usually has more net environmental benefit than a LEED-certified new building.

Historic preservation strengthens the community. A varied streetscape with a mix of uses makes that community safer and more resilient the same way that a forest that is composed of a variety of different tree species is more resistant to fire and disease than a monoculture of a single species. Historic preservation avoids that monoculture of the built environment that is numbing to the soul and depressing to the economy, which is subject to decline in the future as the entire area ages and deteriorates at the same time. We're watching this phenomenon on display in communities across the country as first- and second-tier suburbs deteriorate.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Historic Tax assistance has been in the Tax Code since 1976. That's why it's important with all the justifiable pressure and concern to reform and simplify the Tax Code that we must retain tools for historic preservation. Indeed, I think it's time to modernize the historic property tax credit to reflect the many changes since 1976. Some of the most profound adjustments were made during the administration of Ronald Reagan, but it's been over 25 years since the provisions were addressed comprehensively.

We need to recognize the difficulty with the current investment climate that makes it more difficult for people to take advantage of the tax credit as well as opportunities going forward to maximize the capacity for this important program. That's why I have introduced, with my Republican partner, Congressman Aaron Schock, H.R. 2479. It would provide more benefit to smaller-scale, Main Street rehabilitation. There will be a 10 percent bonus for significantly enhancing energy conservation and special incentives that can be used in tandem with the 33 historic tax credit programs in individual States across America.

It's hard to think of a better value for strategic investment in communities that provide a sense of place in history with the creation of jobs and wealth. A modernized historic preservation tax credit will be a key ingredient for years to come--a building block for a livable community where families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important modernization of the historic preservation tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, taxation is serious business. How to pay for what America needs should be at the core of a thoughtful policy and political discussion. Unfortunately, going into a campaign ``silly season,'' it will be hard to have any thoughtful conversation.

Here on Capitol Hill, we've been trapped in a twilight zone for years, making a reasonable discussion for revenue extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.

The simple fact is that we are an aging and growing Nation. Our tax collections in recent years have fallen due to a combination of the near economic collapse and the maddening slow economic recovery, which, together, with the series of tax cuts since 2001, have reduced total collections to levels not seen since Harry Truman was President. And they continue to lag.

As important as it is to do business differently, to rein in and reform defense spending, our bloated agricultural programs, and health care, the tax system itself must be addressed. More revenues are required to meet our needs, service the debt, and avoid more borrowing.

Most Americans understand this. While no one wants to pay higher taxes, the public understands and will support them, if done right: balanced, simple, and fair.

The worst tax is a tax on our future, the result of unsustainable spending and debt, coupled with tax cuts for people who don't need or deserve them.

The second worst tax is the complex mess we inflict on the public right now. The tax system has a compliance cost to taxpayers of over $160 billion a year for a system that is unfair and inefficient.

Now, there are only a few tax choices we should examine and discuss before we start arguing about the ultimate solution. We can only tax work, wealth, consumption, user fees, investment.

We can also tax what we don't like, the so-called sin taxes, like pollution or tobacco.

And finally, there are royalties for what, if anything, we get back when we give away public wealth like oil, gas, gold, and other valuable minerals. This is not an insignificant source of revenue, going not to some faceless government, but for the public. This is too seldom discussed in the context of paying for services or reducing the debt.

All seven have advantages and disadvantages, but we should be clear- eyed about them, especially this year, when we will be considering before December 31, what the CBO says will cost $5.4 trillion to extend all the expiring tax provisions for the next 10 years. This would be a good place to start in reforming the tax system and collecting badly needed revenue.

This should be done only after careful examination. Changes that we may want have to be done very carefully. They don't have to be done all at once or suddenly, because that can have unintended consequences.

There are some areas where we need to continue current policy. Something that should happen as soon as possible is to extend the production tax credit, which is one of those provisions due to expire at the end of the year. This modest subsidy has helped jump-start alternative energy, particularly for wind; and it could be a model on how to do it right for energy and economic growth. It doesn't have to be a permanent entitlement, but merely help the industry come to scale. But the threat that it won't be extended has already shut down new project development and has curtailed manufacturing in the United States. Bipartisan legislation could be passed next week overwhelmingly, and I hope it's something that we would consider.

Some areas need bold action, like the alternative minimum tax. This has been perverted into a grossly unfair tax on millions of American families and threatens tens of millions more. It will never be imposed. We will do everything we can to blunt its full effects. It should just be eliminated outright as part of this end-of-the-year process. Other provisions, like carried interest, where billionaire hedge fund managers get wildly favorable tax treatment on unbelievable wealth, cry out for reform.

Using the looming deadline to deal with the basics, we can phase in adjustments over the full 10-year period to be fair in transition, avoid dislocation and continue to nurture the still-fragile recovery; and if we start now, we will be able to make commitments, hopefully, that will be honored by both parties over the course of the next decade.

Done right, we can meet the revenue requirements for what America needs, simplify the system, reduce unfairness and complexity, and reduce cheating so that it is fair and more efficient.

I have an amendment to offer.

I commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their outstanding work and leadership on this appropriations bill. It provides for our veterans, for our military families, and it makes great strides for greater energy efficiency on military installations.

But I think it might be able to go farther.

My amendment would strengthen military national security and save taxpayers money by decreasing the Pentagon's energy consumption. The amendment would simply align the House bill with the Senate mark for the Energy Conservation Investment Program, ECIP, by providing an additional $10 million for planning and design.

The Department of Defense is the largest manager of infrastructure in the United States and the largest consumer of energy in the world, using over 300,000 barrels of oil per day and almost 4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

That's as much energy as the entire State of Oregon, which I call home.

The Pentagon operates 500 installations with over a half million buildings and structures worldwide. Given the size and scope of our military's infrastructure, it's not surprising to find that the Department of Defense accounts for more than 70 percent of all energy consumed by the entire Federal Government.

I believe that the Pentagon and Congress have an obligation to taxpayers, who foot the Pentagon's bill of $17 billion a year, which is spent on gasoline and diesel fuel, to not only decrease the military's overall level of energy consumption through efficiency efforts, but to move towards greater energy independence from the petro-dictators.

It's a necessity for our continued national security, that of freeing our military from the tethers of foreign oil as resources grow scarcer and suppliers more unstable. It's also an obligation for anyone who is serious about cutting our national debt. Every $10 increase in the price of petroleum costs the Pentagon an extra $1.3 billion a year on top of what we're already spending.

There are alternatives. There are solutions.

Congress needs to act by providing the resources and the authorities the Pentagon needs because ``supporting our troops'' means securing their energy future. In some cases, Congress simply needs to stand out of the way so that the Pentagon can continue making progress. The $160 million in the Senate bill is only a drop in the giant gasoline can if it is not accompanied by a significant investment in alternative energy sources for use by the military. Leaders in the Pentagon and our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan stand behind the idea of making the military leaner and meaner by reducing its reliance on fossil fuel.

Speaking in reference to this amendment, Mike Breen, a veteran and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, said:

As an Operation Free veteran and former captain in Iraq and

Afghanistan, I saw firsthand that we have a 21st-century

military shackled to a 20th-century fuel. All of our civilian

leaders must match the military's commitment and stop putting

shortsighted politics ahead of good policy.

But some colleagues are tied to the past, and they've scuttled any and all efforts to provide for greater efficiency and alternatives in military vehicles.

The amendment I offer today must be accompanied by future investment in sustainable fuels in the military, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that the only way to truly sustain a strong military and achieve energy independence is to stand up for these investments, not only today, but in future appropriations as well.

I thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work. This appropriations bill puts us closer to where we need to be, and I hope they will join me in making this last push. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I offer an amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This is such a well-oiled machine, the subcommittee galloping ahead, and I apologize that I turned my head. I think it is worthy to go back and deal with this amendment offered on behalf of my colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and myself.

Today, America stands on the precipice of discovery when it comes to understanding how the human brain operates. These discoveries have huge implications for taxpayers--who cumulatively spend over a half trillion dollars a year on treatments for brain-related issues--and for some of the most pressing medical challenges we face.

Scientific breakthroughs in neuroscience research have led to a higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans who are affected by neurological illnesses every year. Two of the most pressing examples of how outside trauma and events can drastically alter the structure and function of our brain are under the purview of this subcommittee: posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

These injuries can often be hidden from the naked eye. Almost one in five soldiers in the previous decade suffered a traumatic brain injury, and 15 percent of veterans are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. That represents hundreds of thousands of cases of cognitive and physical impairment due to TBI and PTSD that impact the lives and the loved ones of our servicemen and -women.

Today, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and I, as cochairs of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, are offering an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Act to ensure that the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can truly be termed an epidemic. The amendment does not increase or decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires that no fewer than $35 million of the medical and prosthetic research account go towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury so that we can expedite a cure for active duty personnel and veterans suffering the effects of brain and psychological trauma incurred during their service.

We are keenly aware that translating research into effective treatments and therapeutics is a long and difficult process. Every area of research undertaken by the VA to help our veterans must be a priority. But we believe that TBI and PTSD research must be further prioritized in this bill because we are so close to the finish line in our race to find the right treatments for these brain injuries that now is the time to dig deep and make the final push.

Also, these items demand our special attention because their effects can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly diagnosed. Early detection and prevention preempts chaos, hardship and, indeed, in some cases, further loss of life.

We must commit to better understand how the brain's 100 billion nerve cells grow, interact, and are altered by our environment. It's hard to think of a more fitting gesture from this body a few days after Memorial Day than supporting this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to finding effective treatments and therapies for these neurological impacts which plague our military personnel who dutifully serve our country. We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible as a missing limb but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future and relationships.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, a commitment from Congress to our servicemembers that we will continue to do all we can to develop new medicines and technologies to improve the lives for those in need.

Again, I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee and respectfully urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: Page 31, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000) (increased by

$35,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 14, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased

by $10,000,000)''.

Page 4, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Today, the House will debate the Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year. While nothing is more important than protecting America while keeping our men and women in uniform safe, the authorization before us today wastes too much of our Nation's precious wealth and represents yet another missed opportunity for badly-needed reform.

H.R. 4310, unfortunately, highlights Congress's inability to make hard choices on defense spending. It opts for an all-of-the-above strategy and puts the funding of an already bloated military budget ahead of any semblance of fiscal responsibilities. If passed, the authorization would represent 57 percent of our total discretionary budget.

It's clear to most people outside Congress that we can no longer separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Congress needs to get that message. Our constituents certainly understand.

Last week, a Stimson Center poll showed that, on average, Americans feel that the defense budget should be reduced by 18 percent next year. Instead, this bill will decrease spending by less than one-half of 1 percent after 13 consecutive years of increase.

While budget hawks and military experts agree we need to cut defense spending, this year's defense authorization provides $8 billion more than the cap for the defense budget set by the Budget Control Act, which both parties supported and enacted into law to solve last summer's manufactured debt ceiling crisis.

Many supporting the bill will raise a false choice between defending America or rebuilding and renewing America, its infrastructure, and our economy. We can and we must do both. Spending too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things will undermine the very security at home we seek to buy through more military spending. Crumbling bridges and roads, failing schools, and a massive national debt all pose a greater national threat to America's power abroad than right-sized defense spending.

We know how to do this. We have had a cascade of plans, ranging from the Cato Institute to the Bowles-Simpson to progressive think-tanks. All would meet our 21st century need for national defense while keeping promises to future generations here at home.

In addition to ending the war in Afghanistan more quickly, there are many ways to decrease defense spending. Increased efficiency in naval deployment can reduce the need for battleships. We don't need a growing supercarrier fleet. The United States' 11 aircraft carriers add up to more than the rest of the world combined, and many of the countries that have aircraft carriers are our allies.

The current level of investment in our nuclear arsenal with capabilities that correspond to no real military challenge makes no sense and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership either can't or doesn't want to work towards a balanced approach to reduce defense spending. This was illustrated by the response to an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee last week. Instead of making tough choices on defense spending, our Republican colleagues decided to give the Pentagon even more than they asked for and provide them this funding in part by eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, reducing benefits for 44 million more, curtailing Meals on Wheels, and eliminating school lunches for 280,000 children.

The level of spending in today's defense authorization is absurd. But more shocking is what Americans are being forced to give up to continue funding the Pentagon at this level.

Congress needs to show some leadership and ability to make difficult choices. That's why I'm leading, along with Representatives Lee and Frank, an amendment to cut defense spending for the next fiscal year by the $8 billion that would align the bill with the level already authorized and written into law last fall.

We can and should go further, but at the very least most should be able to agree that Congress ought to play by the rules we created, not sidestepping them at the expense of struggling families, disadvantaged school children, and our seniors. Unless we are able to fix this bill, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I appreciate the gentleman.

As cofounder of the bipartisan Working Group on Export Controls, I want to thank my colleagues for their hard work to address this system, which was created in the midst of the Cold War but remained relatively unchanged despite the amazing advance of technology, which has rendered much of it obsolete.

We have an opportunity for reform by supporting the administration's initiatives to deliver greater clarity and efficiency. I think your amendment makes progress.

I have three concerns:

Provisions, first of all, that deal with the requirement the administration may be called upon to specify--individually--hundreds of thousands of parts that will be transferred, a requirement that may be impossible to comply with;

The amendment includes seven new reporting requirements of little use but taking valuable time away from enforcement;

And finally, the amendment would remove the President's existing authority, in place since 1998, to waive restriction on satellite exports, limiting his ability to conduct foreign policy.

I commend the good work that is in the bill, and hope that these provisions can be addressed as the legislation moves forward.

The Violence Against Women Act has been one of the great legislative successes of the last two decades. Since it was first signed into law by President Clinton, there is no question that it has helped millions of women by funding a variety of community violence protection programs and a variety of victim assistance services from coast to coast while providing a legal framework for protection. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the legislation in all subsequent reauthorizations because of the recognition for the vital nature of the services that are provided and the impact that it has not just on women, but on the children in these families. That's why it was reauthorized in 2000 and then again in 2005 under a Republican administration with President Bush.

In this Congress, that tradition of bipartisan support continues in the Senate, which has approved a stronger version of the legislation developed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, cosponsored by both Chair Leahy and Ranking Member Crapo. Sadly, it's facing a decidedly different fate in the House.

Once again, the Republican majority is advancing legislation by one of their new Members that is designed not to bring people together to solve problems, but to create unnecessary divisions. Their bill would actually roll back, for the first time, these established rights rather than increase them. The House legislation would fail to provide protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual individuals. It would fail Native American victims who are assaulted on tribal lands by nontribal predators. The bill would discourage immigrants from reporting sexual assaults and other crimes by placing unnecessary restrictions on new visa programs and not increase the emergency visas for individuals who immigrate to the United States on a marriage or fiancee visa and are subject to an abusive relationship.

Not only does the House bill miss these opportunities, but it would remove the current confidentiality protections for victims who still had immigrant status. It would inexplicably reduce violence reporting requirements on colleges and universities. These are all tools widely used and supported by law enforcement officials to help keep communities safe by prosecuting criminals and protecting victims.

The House bill would decentralize the Violence Against Women immigration adjudication process, bypassing examiners who are trained in domestic violence and sexual assault, instead, mandating additional interviews on battered immigrants. These are people who usually have very limited options to protect themselves. We should not complicate the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the United States. These victims of violence--usually women in the most difficult of circumstances--will be burdened, hindered, and discouraged from seeking and getting the help they need.

The House bill would represent the triumph of ideological partisan politics over solid legislation with an opportunity for solid bipartisan support. It should be firmly rejected.

Instead, the House should use this opportunity to build on a record of proven success, bipartisan cooperation, and a commitment to strengthening the protection of society's most vulnerable by using the Senate bill as a template. These victims and potential victims deserve no less. They, their families, and the communities they live in deserve no less.

Domestic violence is an assault on the entire community and should not be tolerated. We should not retreat on the Violence Against Women Act, but strengthen it by using the Senate bill as a point of departure and reject the House version.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

This is no dispute in this Chamber that a nuclear armed Iran is completely unacceptable. That's why it was so encouraging to hear the Democratic whip say with assurance--and I think we all agree--that we are hitting Iran where it hurts the most.

The news this weekend was filled with accounts of ``dark'' ships of oil tankers of Iran that are unable to deliver oil. They are having their oil trade significantly constricted. Their economy is being battered, their currency in free-fall.

The President has assembled the broadest coalition we have seen uniting behind this diplomatic effort. We have had a range of people in the past who have been, I think, too sympathetic to Iran or at least have not stood up to them. But they are falling in place with us.

Now we are on the verge of what hopefully will be encouraging diplomatic efforts scheduled to start next week. The resolution claims to support an endorsed diplomacy but, in fact, the timing and the wording undercuts that.

Now is the time that we ought to be united and we ought to be focused. We ought to make sure that we have a positive environment to seize on the pain that is being inflicted on the regime, to be able to capitalize on the coalition and be able to make progress. Instead, we have a resolution--and these concepts have been bandied about now for several months--but we have a resolution that's rushed to the House floor, unsettlingly timed before the negotiations.

It never had a hearing. It never had a markup. There was no opportunity to find out what, actually, the implications are of changing a standard from preventing Iran from ``acquiring'' nuclear weapons to preventing Iran from ``obtaining'' a nuclear weapons capability. These are not small matters, and they bear on the ultimate success of our coalition, the diplomacy, because every expert has concluded that an armed intervention, a military attack against Iran would be disastrous for all involved. And my colleague from Ohio quoted people from the Israeli Government who are convinced that military action would be folly.

But the point is, we shouldn't be at this point. We shouldn't be casting a cloud over the negotiations. It's unnecessary. It's nonproductive. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this just as I appreciate his setting the stage in terms of why we're here, in terms of what President Obama inherited when he was elected to office.

But another reason we're here is that the Republican leadership doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to reduce the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. Nothing is a greater illustration of this than the response to an amendment that I offered in the Budget Committee. On Monday, when we were dealing with this, I offered up to my colleagues:

Instead of eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, cutting benefits early to 20 months, reducing benefits for 44 million people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children, I said, Wait a minute. Why don't we work together on something that we agree on?

I've worked with the chairman of the Budget Committee in the past to try and reform agriculture subsidies. We got reconciliation instruction from the Ag Committee that takes it all out of the nutrition for poor people, for children, for struggling families. I said, Why don't we go to where we agree: crop insurance wastes billions, and direct payments go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them.

We have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that goes to the wealthiest agribusiness interests. We've worked on that together. A majority of the Budget Committee, I'm sure, agrees. It would pass on the floor, and we could meet this objective and more without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling Americans. I've looked at those people in my community, and I can't imagine my colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens, have worked with the food stamp recipients.

The answer, in part, was that we can't do this. We do agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm bill. That's coming up for reauthorization later. You'll have to do it in the farm bill. That's where we deal with direct payments. That's where we deal with crop insurance.

Hello? Where are food stamps authorized? They're in the exact same farm bill, and the Republicans have decided they're going to ignore this opportunity for a bipartisan compromise that will save more money and protect families. Instead, they're going to protect agribusiness and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. It's shameful and should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, last week an outstanding group of young men and women from Portland, Oregon's Lincoln High School placed first in the national ``We the People Competition,'' a contest sponsored by the Classroom Law Project. It is an extraordinary program that allows young men and women to dive deeply into constitutional theory and the legislative process, and understand what it all means for contemporary America in an all-too-often dysfunctional political arena.

Over the years, it's been my privilege to work with instructors and students on these programs, to have watched them prepare for hours at a time, and watch them celebrate their successes. In the Portland Public School District, we are particularly proud of our high schools Lincoln and Grant, who have competed against each other for the State title for more than 2 dozen years, and consistently are strong contenders at the national level.

Their achievements are testimony not only to the hard work and intelligence of the student competitors, but also to a dedicated core of teachers and citizen volunteers, often prominent judges and lawyers, and alumni of the program who continue their involvement long after they cease to be students. A special shout-out this year and every year should go to Lincoln instructor Tim Swinehart, local attorney Steve Griffith and his volunteer team, and the extraordinarily supportive principal, Peyton Chapman.

As I met with the Lincoln team earlier this spring in preparation for the national championships, it was clear to me that this was a stellar team even by the standards of this terrific program. That they won this year with a team largely composed of sophomores makes it all the more an extraordinary accomplishment. I would willingly grant them voting privileges here in Congress.

In addition to the dedicated coaches and volunteers, I want to recognize this year's winning student team. They are: Avery Ballato, Catherine Barton, Marty Berger, Hallie Blashfield, Ryan Bloom, Danny Brillhart, John Carey, Julian Dann, Julia Eckelmann, Michael Field, Natina Gilbert, Nikhil Goyal, Kendra Hong, Robin Jayaswal, Katie Kelly, Sierra Killian, John Kim, Emma Lane, Duncan MacEachern, William Mao, Olnita Martini, Evan Neuhausen, Sara Newman, Vicki Niu, Sammy Purnell, Justin Richter, Beckett Rueda, Emma Simmons, Sage Smiley, Nita Sridharan, Eri Stern, Mara Strauss, Molly Walls, Carolyn Wheatley, Ajeya Woods and Cole Zollinger.

I urge my colleagues to become acquainted with their local high school constitution competition. I hope the day will come when Congress again gives the financial support to the Classroom Law Project for the civic education that is so important and so critical to preparing students to participate as citizens. With a stronger investment in the Classroom Law Project and programs like We the People, I believe we would all feel better about the future of the Republic.

Madam Speaker, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, embodied in H.R. 4133, is another expression of the American commitment to our friend and ally, Israel. This commitment is already clear and unequivocal. No ally receives stronger assurances of support or more money over a sustained period of time.

This resolution, however, is a missed opportunity for Congress to show support for a comprehensive and balanced approached to Middle East Peace and Israeli security. No amount of American military assistance will fully compensate for the lack of a productive and effective peace process.

A true statement of enhanced security and cooperation would at least reference the United States' long standing expectation that Israel commit to dealing with theit illegal settlements. Omissions such as these do no one a service because, ultimately, they will have to be a part of any lasting solution.

The Obama administration has succeeded in creating an unprecedented coalition to impose the most aggressive sanctions on Iran, ever. The increasing impact of these sanctions and the significance of this broad coalition is a critical development and is a critical part of our security endeavors on which H.R. 4133 is strangely silent.

This fixation on a military response, ignoring some serious deficiencies in the Israeli approach, and not recognizing the important developments on Iran has turned this bill into another missed opportunity.

As much as I agree with some of the resolution overall, I fear it was inadequate and not particularly helpful towards building a stronger and more secure Israel in the long-term. There is no excuse for Congress not doing better and as a result, I voted ``present'' on H.R. 4133.

Mr. Speaker, last week an outstanding group of young men and women from Portland, Oregon's Lincoln High School placed first in the ``We the People Competition,'' a contest sponsored by the Classroom Law Project. It is an extraordinary program that allows young men and women to dive deeply into the constitutional process, the legislative process, and understand what it all means for contemporary America in an all-too-often dysfunctional political arena.

Over the years, it's been my privilege to work with instructors and students on these programs, to have watched them prepare, particularly in Portland High Schools Lincoln and Grant that have vied for the State title for more than 2 dozen years, and of course the national contest as well.

This is testimony to a dedicated core of teachers and citizen volunteers, often prominent judges and lawyers, and alumni of the program who continue their involvement long after they cease to be students. A special shout-out this year to Lincoln instructor Tim Swinehart, local attorney Steve Griffith and his volunteer team, and the extraordinarily supportive principal, Peyton Chapman.

As I met with the Lincoln team earlier this spring in preparation for the national championships, it was clear to me that this was a stellar team even by the standards of this terrific program. That they won this year with a team largely composed of sophomores makes it all the more an extraordinary accomplishment. I would willingly grant them voting privileges here in Congress. They actually would fit right in and I think do an excellent job.

I urge my colleagues to become acquainted with their local high school constitution competition. I hope the day will come when Congress again gives the financial support to the Classroom Law Project for the civic education that today is so important and so critical to preparing students to participate as citizens. You, like me, will feel better about the future of the Republic because of the result.

One way Congress could honor the hard work of the young people who are the future of our country would be for us to get down to business in enacting legislation that improves the country they will inherit. One piece of legislation all teed up and ready to go is H.R. 4321, the Heavy Truck Fairness Act of 2012, that I've been working on for a number of years. I have been pleased to introduce it in this Congress with my friend and colleague, Jim Gerlach, from Pennsylvania.

This legislation would be deficit neutral, according to the CBO. It would convert the current 12 percent excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers in a revenue-neutral way with an equivalent increase in the truck fuel tax. One of the immediate benefits would be to provide stability to a highly volatile revenue source for the highway trust fund. This large, upfront 12 percent tax on new trucks and equipment is highly sensitive to changes in technology requirements and the economy. Replacing it instead with a slight increase in the fuel tax for the industry would smooth out the revenues for the Federal Government, while it would remove a huge disincentive for upgrading equipment for America's trucking fleets.

It would represent a significant increase in business for the people who manufacture this equipment because it would remove a 12% financial disincentive. It would provide extra American manufacturing and sales, like at a local freightliner truck manufacturing facility in my district. It would allow people who operate a fleet of any size, whether a one-truck operation or a large national trucking company, to reduce their costs with newer, more fuel-efficient engines that would reduce day-to-day maintenance, and reduce fuel costs. They would break down less often, and they would also produce less air pollution and fewer carbon emissions. It's hard to think of something that would be a better expression of our responsibility to boost the American economy, save energy, reduce emissions, and benefit so many people--from those who manufacture,

to those who sell and service, to the people who operate, and, yes, the customers of America's fleet of trucks. Everybody benefits, and we end up with a highway trust fund that is more stable and predictable over time.

I sincerely hope that this is a provision that can find its way into law this year, maybe as early as the transportation conference committee, or in the elaborate dance that will surround the treatment of the expiring tax provisions later this year. Whatever the legislative vehicle, we ought to make the vehicles in America's fleet less expensive and more efficient.

Madam Chair, security and privacy are not mutually exclusive. The intelligence community--within government and the private sector--has the tools necessary to keep us safe without compromising our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the bill before the House, H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), treats privacy and civil liberties as obstacles to cybersecurity. Therefore, I oppose this legislation.

Just as the Internet has revolutionized the way people do business, learn, and interact, it has also transformed the nature of the threats against our national security. Every day bad actors--rogue states, terrorist organizations, and hackers--attempt to infiltrate America's cyber networks. Some security experts warn that a cyber attack poses the greatest threat to our national security.

The intent of CISPA is laudable. Cybersecurity experts in government and the private sector agree that the biggest impediments to strengthening cybersecurity are the obstacles preventing the sharing of cyber threat information. If one network is attacked, other networks could benefit from information pertaining to that attack. However, CISPA fails to adequately protect civil liberties in facilitating this information sharing.

CISPA preempts all other provisions of law, including critical privacy laws. The bill does not define ``national security'' at all, leaving that to the discretion of private entities and the government. The definition of ``cybersecurity threat'' is too broad and could allow the sharing of private information that does not relate to a real threat. The bill also does not require that the data be scrubbed of key information that may identify individuals. Once this information is shared, it is supposed to be used only for cybersecurity or national security purposes. But again these terms are undefined or only partially defined, leaving open the potential that this information may be abused in a way that does not relate to a real threat.

Strengthening America's cybersecurity is a bipartisan issue. It should be done in a thoughtful and deliberate manner to ensure that we are securing the country while still protecting our civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unfortunately, CISPA falls short.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, a previous commitment has prevented me from voting today, but if I had the opportunity, I would have voted against the legislation. It is abundantly clear that Congress needs to do something to keep student interest rates from doubling for more than 7 million college students in the coming year. Ensuring that education is widely accessible is vital to growing the U.S. economy and to expanding opportunities for all Americans. The growing burden of higher education costs is an issue that everyone should be concerned about and threatens to limit future economic growth. We must not burden graduates with unmanageable college debt as they seek to launch a career or a business, start a family, or buy a house.

That's why Democrats have been pushing Republicans for weeks to do something to provide students and families with certainty as they look ahead to the 2012 2013 school year.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, which would permanently keep interest rates for student Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. Taking action to stop the doubling of these rates will save students $1,000, on average, over the life of their loans. There is a clear national interest in enacting this legislation and broad support from my constituents.

That's why it's particularly frustrating that Republicans have chosen to link their legislation, which provides students with only one year of reprieve before interest rates go up again, with a controversial offset that ensures the legislation won't actually pass. The chosen

offset for this bill removes funding for health prevention services, forcing Americans to choose between preventive health care and paying more for college. For instance, Republicans have used this legislation to remove funding for breast and cervical cancer prevention and control efforts ($143 million), programs to address birth defects and developmental disabilities such as newborn screening for hearing loss and prevention of congenital heart defects ($107 million), and vaccinations for underserved children and adults ($72 million).

Both student aid and public health are core governmental functions and basic investments in our country's future. While providing student aid is very important, we have to make sure that children are healthy enough to go to college in the first place. Why are Republicans wasting America's time with political games when there is a clear path forward to solving the problem in a permanent, bipartisan fashion?

Unfortunately a long-standing engagement out of town means that I will have to miss the vote on this legislation. Due to my concern over the offset for the program, I would have voted no. I hope that my colleagues can draft a new bill that protects our students without taking money away from important preventative health services.