Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to a policy oversight, 1 million adults who are looking for work but are unsuccessful at risk to lose their eligibility for Supplement Nutrition Assistance Benefits in 2016. My Colleague Representative Suzan DelBene and I are introducing simple legislation today that would address this issue, and ensure no one falls through the cracks. Our bill is called the SNAP Work Opportunity Act.

The SNAP work requirement was established on the assumption that anyone who couldn't find work would take part in a job training or workfare program in order to continue receiving SNAP benefits. Unfortunately, as former President Clinton highlighted when he signed the bill into law, there is not also a requirement for states to offer their unemployed citizens an opportunity to participate in

a job training or workfare program. While many states may have qualifying programs, only five states guarantee a spot to those adults subject to the work requirement. As a result, even if someone is actively looking for work but can't find it, they can lose their eligibility for SNAP benefits.

Recently, this issue hasn't been at the forefront. The economic downturn has made states eligible for waivers to the work requirement because of high and sustained in-state unemployment. Almost all states--42--are eligible for and using a waiver in 2015. However, the economy's continued growth is expected to prevent most states from qualifying for the waivers in 2016. While economic growth is a great thing, it doesn't mean that everyone has a job nor does it mean that everyone looking for a job is able to get one. As a result of the loss of waivers, the CBPP predicts more than 1 million adults who are unable to find jobs and aren't offered an opportunity to take part in a job training or workfare program could lose their eligibility for SNAP benefits in 2016.

The SNAP Work Opportunity Act would make the 3 month limit for eligibility only apply if a person was offered a job training or workfare opportunity. With this fix, those who are looking for work aren't penalized because their state doesn't have the resources to offer a job training or work program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation to put a price on harmful carbon emissions.

Tackling climate change is not merely a warm, fuzzy idea championed by tree huggers. It is a growing crisis with global implications that environmentalists, business leaders, political leaders, and military strategists alike cannot ignore. Earlier this year, the White House included climate change among its ``top strategic risks,'' citing ``increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water.'' Even the Pentagon has been sounding the alarm on climate change.

In reintroducing this legislation, I call continued attention to an issue of which I have long been a champion. I first introduced legislation to impose a carbon tax in 2009, recognizing the scientific consensus and anticipating the growing call to action precipitated by the increasingly drastic weather events and their growing human, environmental and fiscal cost.

My legislation, the Managed Carbon Price Act of 2015, places a price on carbon emissions that would increase over time. The proceeds from this legislation go into a newly-created Energy and Economic Security Trust Fund where 100 percent of the revenue goes back to the public to offset any price increases. This bill is good for the environment and good for business.

While Seattleites have long recognized the need to act on climate change, I am pleased to see President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency take bold actions to confront this growing threat. With our international partners moving forward, multinational and American businesses already accounting for future prices on carbon, and former Republican officials acknowledging the urgency of this growing threat, it is past time for Congressional Republicans to accept the science and work together with Democrats to combat climate change. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am telling a story told to children. The story to the children is this:

When President Obama became President, most people didn't live in the house of health. There were 30 million people who were out in the street who had nothing. So President Obama built them a house and said everybody can live in the house of health and have health care.

Their next-door neighbor didn't like the house, complained about the house, said there was everything wrong with the house, and has tried 55 times to blow the house down, just like the Big Bad Wolf in the ``Three Little Pigs.'' This time, they have come with a bulldozer, and they want to knock the house down and put everybody out in the street again.

Now, this would be not so silly if it wasn't for the fact that they have no plans to build anything for the people to live in. They have talked for 5 years: We have plans. We have a committee. We are going to have plans here any day now.

The fact is they have no plan for the people. They simply say to the American people: We want to knock down your house of health. Your preexisting condition will now keep you from health care. Your kids are off before 26. All of this is going to happen because we don't think you should have a house of health in this country.

They have no plan, and they know it, and they are ashamed of it. But they can't stand the fact that Mr. Obama

built a house that covered everybody. It is a glorious creation.

Is it perfect? No.

Did they come over with a hammer or paint or something to change it? No.

It was always: Knock that house down.

Folks, vote ``no.'' Keep the house up.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to conceive of a democratic society in which everyone does not have health security. When you look across the face of the Earth, every industrialized society on the face of the Earth has given health security to their people. They have had their own plan. The Germans had their plan, the Japanese had their plan, the British had their plan, and the Canadians--everybody has had their own plans.

Now, what we are arguing about here today is the President brought a plan to the Congress and tried to work with the other side, but they said: No, no, no, no.

So we passed a bill. Now, there isn't anybody in this business who has done any work in any legislative body who believes that you can write a perfect piece of legislation. You always have to make changes in it. You find things in it that need to be changed, and we have had no help whatsoever of bringing out the kind of changes that would make sense to make this bill work for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, when you get sick, you are not a Democrat. When you get sick, you are not a Republican. You are not in the Tea Party, and you are not on the left. You are just sick, and you want some help. That is why this bill is way beyond partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with Bill Frist. About a year and a half ago, he wrote an editorial in which he said: Don't repeal, fix.

I called him up and said: You and I ought to work together and see if we can't work with the Republican caucus. Maybe you can get into them. They won't talk to me about working together.

He said: Well, I will do what I can.

But we never got there. Everybody knows that you do not want to have a situation tomorrow where you have a preexisting condition and you have no health insurance. That is the kind of thing you are creating by repeal. It is just a bad bill. Just put it aside, and let's work on it.

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the Global Sai Movement, which celebrates the teachings and ideals of Shirdi Sai Baba, the most respected of the 19th century Indian perfect masters and renowned for his teachings of respect, compassion, and acceptance. He transcended religious barriers, earning accolades from Hindus, Christians, and Muslims.

Dr. Chandra Bhanu Satpathy deserves great credit for his earnest and humble leadership of the Global Sai Movement. Since 1989, Dr. Satpathy has proven himself to be an exemplary leader, working to improve the welfare of others in the spirit of Sai Baba's teachings.

He has established nearly 350 cultural and community centers around the world and has sponsored international cultural and spiritual festivals.

At a time when many parts of the world are in turmoil, much of it due to sectarian divisions, Dr. Satpathy and the Global Sai Movement offer a bridge of goodwill and vision for a peaceful future.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in our 6th month of war against ISIS, and make no mistake about it, we are at war in Iraq, though I do not recall a debate or a vote in this Chamber authorizing that.

I would respectfully remind the President, who is well-versed in constitutional law, of something he already knows but appears unwilling to address: the executive is not permitted under the articles of the Constitution to unilaterally authorize military action in a situation that does not constitute an imminent threat.

There is no doubt that ISIS is a depraved and repugnant organization, but our intelligence community has repeatedly said it does not imminently threaten the United States. Even if that assessment were to change following the horror we witnessed in Paris, we would still need a clear authorization and a serious debate about yet another American war in Iraq.

I and several of my colleagues in both Chambers have been calling for such a debate since last August. In November, the President said he intended to work with the Congress to craft a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, or an AUMF, in the anti-ISIS campaign.

Before it adjourned last year, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations drafted and passed a new, if vague, AUMF against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Mr. Speaker, the 113th Congress abrogated its responsibility to acknowledge that the ongoing military campaign in Iraq and Syria cannot be sustained on the back of war powers notifications of two outdated AUMFs.

The start of this new Congress is a perfect time to actually do something about this urgent need by debating and voting on something required of us 6 months ago. Over 3,000 American troops have been deployed to retrain Iraqi Army brigades that will allegedly be the new and improved force to take over against ISIS.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declined to say over the weekend how long this training would take, so the Prime Minister of Iraq volunteered a guess: 3 years. In 3 years, which seems awfully optimistic, Iraq may be able to rebuild and restructure its military.

Does this mean 3 more years of coalition airstrikes, if we even have a coalition by then? Does that mean 3 more years of military advisers to train forces that will never be ready? Does that mean 3 more years of American troops sent out to reoccupy those decrepit bases that served as a stark reminder of the last time--more than 10 years ago--we went to war in Iraq without a strategy?

Mr. Speaker, apparently, the reading of the Constitution on the House floor last week was gratuitous, since the Congress has no intention of following a key section of the Constitution. When it comes to war and peace, Mr. Speaker, the authority remains firmly with the Congress; yet we have sent our country's sons and daughters to war without a new bill, a serious debate, or a proper vote.

Where is our sense of priority, reading the Constitution or obeying it? Where is our sense of responsibility? We have already had 6 months of unilateral war against ISIS. Another 3 years is intolerable.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to invite the President to come up here and address this House, all 535 Members of Congress, to tell us what he needs and what he has decided is worth the sacrifice. It cannot be done, it should not be done, without an authorization from this Congress. To fail to do that is eroding to the very Constitution that we say we support in this House.

We have a civilian control of the military, not by one man, but by 535 Members of Congress. That is the way it is supposed to work. We need to have this debate now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my growing concern about the economic issues of fracking. The once booming oil fracking market could be headed for a bust.

If a bust in the oil fracking sector does happen, it could create massive losses on Wall Street and for investors on Main Street in two ways. First, fracking oil drillers issued massive amounts of debt to construct the necessary wells. With the price of gas falling, many oil fracking drillers now face cash shortfalls. As a result, it is becoming more and more difficult for frackers to meet their debt servicing obligations. If the debt servicing obligations are not met, investors on Main Street and Wall Street could be left holding billions of dollars of worthless bonds.

Second, many companies took out derivatives contracts against market fluctuation, insuring stable cash flow. Losses are mounting on these contracts as oil prices fall. Wall Street banks that own many of these contracts will have to absorb massive losses. The unexpected shock of falling oil prices may destabilize the balance sheet of these big banks, creating the conditions for another financial crisis.

Below is an article from Truthout.org that further explains this issue.

[Truthout.org]

Russia Blamed, U.S. Taxpayers on the Hook, as Fracking Boom Collapses

(By Ben Ptashnik)

As Congress removes restrictions on taxpayers bailing out

the too-big-to-fail banks, the right is blaming

environmentalists and Russia for the demise of the fracking

boom. In reality, the banks' junk bonds and derivatives have

flooded Wall Street, and now the fracking bubble threatens

another financial crisis.

Collapsing crude oil prices due to oversupply are reaching

tsunami proportions, threatening Wall Street banks, investors

and a dozen countries, foremost Russia, Iran and Venezuela,

where revenue losses have caused severe financial

degradation, and economies are about to implode. While

Americans are today enjoying $2 per gallon gasoline, Wall

Street's analysts predict that an imminent energy market

collapse will bring financial institutions to their knees

once again, and taxpayers are being set up for another

mandatory bailout.

At the heart of these tectonic shifts in the entire energy

sector is the recent expansion of the hydraulic fracturing

(fracking) industry, a boom cycle that began in earnest when

Congress and the Bush administration passed the Energy Policy

Act of 2005, which exempted the new horizontal drilling

technology from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water

Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. By tapping

considerable quantities of new oil and gas resources from

shale deposits, the fracking boom promised U.S. energy

independence, upending the world's prevailing paradigms

around renewable energy and peak oil expectations.

Environmentalists fought against the huge Keystone pipeline

infrastructure that would deliver the fossil fuels to foreign

markets, fearing that exploiting these resources would

undermine the struggle for the curbing of carbon emissions.

Fracking also threatened the dominance of Russia and Saudi

Arabia as the fossil fuel suppliers of Europe when it became

evident that the United States would soon become a net

exporter. In the United States, fracking was hyped on Wall

Street as a get-rich-quick opportunity, attracting massive

capital input, and creating an investment bubble. Bloomberg

reported this year that the number of bonds issued by oil and

gas companies has grown by a factor of nine since 2004.

``There's a lot of Kool-Aid that's being drunk now by

investors,'', Tim Gramatovich, chief investment officer and

founder of Peritus Asset Management LLC, told Bloomberg in an

April 2014 article. ``People lose their discipline. They stop

doing the math. They stop doing the accounting,'' he

continued. ``They're just dreaming the dream, and that's

what's happening with the shale boom.''

When gas fracking first popped onto the scene, grandiose

claims were made that the United States had 100 years of gas

supply in shale, or 2,560 trillion cubic feet. And Wall

Street rode that initial estimate. The only downside (beside

the environmental disaster left by this toxic industry) was

that, like the housing bubble which depended on ever-growing

home values to maintain profitability, shale gas wells had to

deliver consistent or growing production and profitability to

pay back heavy debt interest loans on well driller companies:

$3 to $9 million per well. Fracking wells require not just

drilling, but also huge injections of energy, water, sand and

chemicals to fracture the rocks that hold the oil and gas

deposits.

But in fact, no statistical evidence confirmed the hyped

claims of a l00-year shale gas supply. In 2011, a study

downsized this estimate from 2,560 trillion cubic feet to 750

trillion cubic feet, and by 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey

refined that down to 481 trillion cubic feet--less than a 19-

year supply based on 2013 rates of production. Nevertheless,

huge amounts of capital poured into increasingly marginal

operations, and the fracking market was flooded with junk

bonds and derivatives as investors piled in.

Meanwhile oil fracking, which is separate from gas

fracking, also needed huge injections of capital, but more

importantly, oil frackers needed oil prices to stay at $85 a

barrel or higher on average to break even. Many of the shale

oil wells that have sucked up a huge amount of investment

have also turned out to have short lives and their operators

required continued infusions of capital to drill new wells to

keep afloat, even as prices tumbled due to the glut they

themselves created. The Bakken, one of the largest oil

fracking plays, is a typical example. It grew exponentially

after environmental protections were removed. But since 2008,

Bakken has required increasingly larger numbers of wells just

to maintain level production and service debt. The industry,

already in trouble in 2013, has now endured plunging revenues

through a year of oil selling at $60 to $70 per barrel, on

average, instead of $90 to $100.

Everyone had expected that in 2014 the Saudis would move to

limit supply and maintain stable oil prices by cutting back

production, as OPEC has done for decades. But an unexpected

shockwave hit the industry in November 2014: The Saudis laid

down the gauntlet and announced their intention to continue

full production and let oil prices drop.

For the Saudis, this serves two purposes: First, it

undermines the expansion of U.S. shale oil by forcing prices

down so low that many of the wells have to be shut down or

lose money. Second, it punishes their enemy, Iran, whose oil

export-based economy has been savaged by the lower prices.

The Saudis are sitting pat, with a trillion-dollar war chest

savings account accumulated over a decade of $100 per barrel

oil. Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi has publicly admitted that the

Saudis will wait as long as needed to retain market share,

even if prices plunge further.

Falling oil prices will place a huge stress on the world's

junk bond market as energy companies now account for 15

percent of the outstanding issuance in the non-investment

grade bond market. The plunge in the prices of crude could

trigger a ``volatility shock large enough to trigger the next

wave of defaults,'' according to Deutsche Bank.

This explains why the Obama administration--with complicity

of both congressional Democrats and Republicans--managed in

the wee hours of the morning to slip a loophole into the

supposedly ``must-pass'' cliff-hanger omnibus budget bill.

This toxic Trojan horse, passed in December 2014, now

includes a minor footnote provision that might cause

taxpayers to pick up the tab on more than a trillion dollars

(yes, trillion) if the energy market bubble implodes, which

it must if oil stays at half the price it fetched just six

months ago.

After last minute, heavy lobbying on the budget bill by

Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and an army of 3,000 Wall

Street lobbyists, it appears that once again sufficient

insecurity and fear had been spread among the political class

regarding destabilization

of the financial markets (or withdrawal of campaign

financing). They allowed a last minute amendment that killed

Dodd-Frank protections, and allowed U.S. taxpayers to be

shaken down to cover Wall Street's shale gambling debacle.

The heavy-handed move by the financial industry has

outraged progressives and libertarians alike. It seems that

these Wall Street criminals, like junkies attached to their

drugs of choice, just could not resist the high of easy cash

from Ponzi scheme market bubbles, and so they have stuck it

to the U.S. public once again: Preposterously huge bonuses,

Porsches, pricey call girls, and million-dollar Manhattan

condos were at stake. So hey, why should they kick the habit?

After all, not a single one of those con artists went to jail

last time.

Wall Street is now flooded with fracking industry

derivatives contracts that protect the profits of oil

producers from dramatic swings in the marketplace.

Derivatives are essentially insurance policies taken out by

the oil industry to guard against fluctuations in the cost of

fossil fuel supplies. Dramatic swings rarely happen, but when

they do they can be absolutely crippling.

Derivatives taken out to ensure prices don't go down are

now creating billions in losses for those who sold such bets

on the market; someone is going to have to absorb massive

losses created by the sudden drop in oil on the other end of

those insurance contracts. In many cases, it is the big Wall

Street banks, and if the price of oil does not rebound

substantially they could be facing colossal losses.

The big Wall Street banks did not expect plunging home

prices to implode the mortgage-backed securities market in

2008, but their current models also did not have $60 oil

prices included in projections. The huge losses may send a

shock wave into the entire financial industry. It has been

estimated that the six largest ``too-big-to-fail'' banks

control $3.9 trillion in commodity derivatives contracts,

those same gambling instruments that brought us the 2008

housing collapse. And a very large chunk of that amount is

made up of oil derivatives. Combined with the huge flood of

shale junk bonds on the market, the derivatives could

initiate a bubble burst that could turn into a financial

market implosion.

Meanwhile, the global climate change issue and energy

market turbulence have morphed into geopolitical tensions

over European fracking. Unsubstantiated allegations in a New

York Times report by Andrew Higgins claim that the Russians

are funding anti-fracking protests to maintain their hegemony

over gas markets.

The allegations have infuriated environmentalists and

climate justice activists. The last thing they want is to be

made scapegoats for the fracking collapse and be played as

the neo-Cold War dupes of the Russian empire. But memories of

red-baiting suddenly hang in the air as (by seemingly

coincidence) dozens of right-wing media sites regularly

devoted to anti-Soviet slanders or climate change denial

immediately picked up Higgins' Times piece, as if on cue.

There are now dozens more of such published reports. Even

as the U.S. fracking industry collapses and tensions over

control of Ukraine and other former Soviet satellites re-

emerge, there seems to be a concerted right-wing effort to

label fracking opponents Russian agents.

Vague innuendos dominate this narrative. In the Times

piece, for example, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh

Rasmussen is quoted: ``I have met allies who can report that

Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and

disinformation operations, engage actively with so-called

non-government organizations.'' Others write, ``Some in

Sophia believe'' or ``Those who suspect Russian involvement''

or ``There's no smoking gun, yet . . . ''

Critics in Romania accused the Times and Higgins of

scapegoating environmentalists and acting as partisan players

in a renewed Cold War.

``What, exactly, is the grand total of evidence that Russia

is financing these anti-fracking protests?'' asks American

blogger in Romania, Sam C. Roman, in his article, ``Pot vs.

Kettle,'' pointing out that the first anti-Russia allegation

came from a politician who owned land that Chevron planned to

frack, and is thus losing money from the protests. ``Not one

allegation against Russia in the entire article is proven by

a single document, piece of evidence or other direct proof.

All that exists are shadowy insinuations and allegations.''

He asserts that accusations by Lithuanian, Romanian and NATO

officials against Russia have not yet to be backed up by any

proof.

``Add it up,'' Roman writes. ``You've got two former NATO

[secretary generals] stumping for Chevron (which competes

with Gazprom, a Russian energy company that also conducts

fracking operations in Europe) blaming the Russian government

for protests. . . . And all of this tied up in a neat little

bow by an American journalist who has already been caught

publishing anti-Russian propaganda in his newspaper before.''

This all leaves the United States somewhat schizophrenic.

On the one hand, the United States and NATO's foreign policy

hawks are delighted by the oil price collapse; it serves to

isolate and subdue Russia, expand NATO's influence in Eastern

Europe, and puts pressure on Iran to negotiate on nuclear

aspirations. Not to mention that with gasoline at $2 per

gallon, consumer spending and economic growth will be

enhanced. The U.S. economy grew by a comparatively robust 5

percent in the third quarter of 2014.

According to an article by Larry Elliott in The Guardian,

``Stakes Are High as U.S. Plays the Oil Card Against Iran and

Russia,'' the price drop was an act of geopolitical warfare

by the United States, administered by the Saudis. Elliott

suggests that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly

struck a deal with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in September.

That might explain how oil prices dropped during the crisis

caused by Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which would

normally have caused prices to rise.

It would also explain why the Obama administration allowed

the financial industry the amendment to Dodd-Frank that

effectively exempts financial institutions from liability

associated with derivatives. Though shale derivatives were

not specifically mentioned by the Wall Street lobbyists as

they pressured their allies in Congress and the White House,

it is becoming increasingly clear that the too-big-to-fail

banks were beginning to panic as dark clouds gathered on the

horizon in the shale derivatives trade.

Most bank customers and voters don't know that Congress has

already written into finance regulations that, in the case of

insolvency, financial institutions could grab the assets of

depositors and ``bail-in''--which means they can save

themselves from their losses in gambling operations at their

investment divisions by grabbing cash assets of depositors,

even those that are FDIC guaranteed, and legally convert them

to bank stocks. That means that in the event of another

market crash, Chase and Citi could take their depositors'

cash in savings accounts or CDs, and give the customers back

a bank stock certificate (of questionable value) instead.

There are also those who scratch their heads and ask, ``Why

did the TBTF banks push for a deletion of the Dodd-Frank

provision now, instead of waiting for the friendlier

Republican-controlled Congress to pass this legislation?''

The only answer that seems to make sense, and explain their

urgency, is that the collapse is imminent.

In the 1990s dot-com craze, every new Silicon Valley start-

up company was advertised as the next Microsoft. What

followed was the crash of 2000, when the NASDAQ dropped 4,000

points (80 percent) in months. This chart below is what the

crash looked like in 2000 to 2002 after the market had

reached 5,000 (almost exactly where it stands today).

Having learned their lesson well from the last bailout, and

knowing that they will have a much harder time coming to

Congress hat-in-hand after a collapse, the TBTF banks

probably decided not to wait, pushing their minions in the

Beltway to inoculate them as soon as possible from the

potential market explosion. In the meantime, they were

probably dumping their own stocks on unsuspecting investors.

Based on year-end reports for March 31, 2014, for 127 major

oil companies, cash input for the fracking industry was $677

billion, while revenues from operations only totaled $568

billion--a difference of almost $110 billion. And this was

before the price of oil started dropping six months ago.

In three out of seven major fracking fields in North

America, companies are already reporting losses, with

closures particularly acute in Canada. It's not clear whether

economists fully appreciate what's about to transpire. This

decline in rig count is just the beginning. Perhaps the end

will come as early as this winter or spring, as fiscal

reports for 2014's fourth quarter are published, operations

shut down, crews are laid off, and many unprofitable oil and

gas rigs are mothballed.

So, whom will the banks, brokers and investors scapegoat

for this upcoming crash? Some predict that they will likely

use every available media outlet to blame community

activists, Democrats and Obama for stopping the Keystone

pipeline and for opposing the fracking industry. And as in

the climate change denier movement, the narrative will

probably use ``communist'' and ``socialist'' rhetoric, which

is why the Russian card is so important to play: Hence the

Higgins article.

The pundits on Fox will likely play on the patriotism of

the right and use their Big Lie ploy (say something enough

times, it becomes the truth) to the hilt. Six months from

now, while studiously avoiding mention of our ``allies,'' the

Saudis, or the Wall Street banks, they will likely be

vociferously defending those poor ``beleaguered U.S. oilmen''

who could have made our country strong and independent again

in energy, but were broken by the Democrats and those

``commie environmentalists'' working for Putin. The market

crash will be blamed on the ``climate hoax.''

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the minority whip. He gave you all the facts and figures.

Let me tell you what this is really about. This is the 54th time that the Republicans have come out here to end the Affordable Care Act. This one is an assault on the employer mandate. You cannot have a bill without an employer mandate.

Now, we had to pick a time. Lots of employers in this country right now without any Federal law are giving insurance to their people down to 30 hours. So we said, ``All right, let's make that full time.'' What the business community said they were supporting, they really weren't supporting, and they are in here to get rid of it.

This bill is the blueprint for business to shift all their employees on to the government, very simply. Close the building at 4 p.m. Now, everybody has only worked 39 hours, right? Go home.

Now, the office doesn't have to offer them any health insurance under the law. They have to go over to the exchange, get involved in Medicaid, get involved in the exchanges and getting subsidies and all of that, which you are going to pay for. You are going to pay for that by letting the employers get out from under paying it and shifting it on to the Federal Government. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ryan for his generous step toward a single-payer system. When the American people find out that their business can now take their insurance away if they don't work 40 hours, they are going to say to themselves, ``Well, then I am in this Federal Government thing. Why isn't everybody in that?''

You are heading down the road of a single-payer system because if you don't have a mandate for employers to cover their workers, you are simply saying, ``Well, the employers don't have to care anymore.'' Who is going to care? Well, the Republicans certainly aren't going to care. You all know that without being told.

Ultimately, politically, this is going to come to bite you because what you are doing is excluding and telling big business, ``You don't have to follow an employer mandate.''

It is a bad bill. Vote ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by associating myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. McGovern.

It is difficult to fathom the daunting array of foreign policy challenges President Obama has had to weather since the start of his administration, challenges which are not the result of any misjudgment on his part.

Few modern leaders have had to contend with such an assortment of diverse global challenges, and the President deserves immense credit, which he rarely receives, for confronting them judiciously.

At nearly every turn, the 44th President has boldly promoted a global vision of peace and security defined by negotiation with allies and adversaries alike. The President's tenacious pursuit of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program is the hallmark of that doctrine. Moreover, he has held fast to these principles in the face of Republican and even some Democrat charges of weakness, arrogance, and treachery.

I admire the President and appreciate what an unenviable position he is faced with in Iraq. However, like Mr.

McGovern, I am alarmed by the recent developments in what is becoming, in my mind, a full-fledged military campaign in Iraq. The situation in Iraq may be difficult, but that excuse does not merit the President's overreliance on war powers and the two outdated authorizations for use of force. When it comes to war and peace, the authority remains firmly with this body, the United States Congress.

Last month we heard that the White House planned to double the number of troops in Iraq, bringing the total to 3,000, despite the President's own promise not to put U.S. troops on the ground. On Monday another 250 paratroopers were called up from the 82nd Airborne for service in Iraq, and Congress is poised to give the President his $5.6 billion request to combat ISIS with virtually no debate scheduled on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to implore the President to come to Congress and explain his strategy for this new campaign in Iraq. Even the last President, who was far less sensible, sought congressional authority. It is in President Obama's best interest to address not just those relevant committees apt to grant him the legal leeway the White House weakly asserts but all 435 Members who have congressional authority and constitutional authority to send our Nation's sons and daughters to war.

The President must tread carefully going forward, and not just because our recent military history in Iraq is poor but also because he now faces a Republican Congress. Those recklessly clamoring for greater military involvement against ISIS would like nothing more than to blame what could easily become a wider conflict, likely doomed to fail, squarely on the President's head. I trust this President, and I have faith that he will make the decisions in the best interest of the American people, as he understands them.

Let me be clear: it is in the American people's best interest for the President to ask the people's representatives--us in the House of Representatives--for a proper authorization for the use of military force. Then John Boehner should lead the debate on such an authorization--a debate at great length and with complete transparency, not behind closed doors, not in committees, not somewhere in conference reports, but out here on the floor in front of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we have wandered down this road in Iraq before with a far less thoughtful President. What our goal was in Iraq is long since lost. Whatever President Bush said it was, it never turned out to be what we were there about. And here we are doing the same thing again, unfortunately. It is time we learned from our mistakes and that we, as Members of Congress, take responsibility for sending our people over there to die. There will be deaths, make no mistake about it. Generals have already said if we go over there a little bit, we are going to be there for the next 2 years. It is time for us to vote on this issue after a lengthy debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by being very clear. I support the ABLE Act itself. It is a compassionate bill that seeks to expand the common good by providing tax-free savings accounts for disabled Americans. If we were voting on that bill today, I would strongly support it. But the ABLE Act isn't the issue here. The issue is how we are going to pay for it. And the proposal we are considering today is just one that jeopardizes the future of our safety net.

Newt Gingrich talked about wanting to have Medicare wither on the vine. That has always been the desire of the Republicans. So today we are setting out on an unprecedented and dangerous course in the funding of this bill.

In a last-minute development, the Congress is now considering using cuts to Medicare to offset the cost of this legislation, taking away from the old people and giving it to these folks. That is their idea of a balanced act.

There has been no serious debate. There has never been a hearing and no thoughtful discussion of the implications of this proposal. If we vote to make these cuts, we will take the first step down a slippery slope that directly undermines the social safety net.

I have checked with the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and couldn't find one example in which Congress has used Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for a tax bill. And that is what this bill is, basically, a tax exemption. It is a good idea, but are we going to use Medicare to pay for it? Because, mark my words, when it comes time to offer another tax break, my colleagues on the other side will come after Medicare again; and the next time, the cut will be deeper and easier because we did it today.

I believe that we should not be a part of beginning to rip Medicare at the very bottom. It looks like just a little bit. And they will say, oh, it is only a tiny bit, and it is not going to affect anybody. But you are establishing a precedent that you will hear again on this floor. For that reason, I intend to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental issue with our current policy on tax extenders.

I was a Ways and Means chairman in the State legislature and was told by a very important businessman in the State of Washington once: I don't care what rate you give me, tell me how long it is going to be; how am I going to amortize this? I need to know the length of time.

This bill, so people really understand, lasts exactly 28 days. It will die on January 1. It is for last year.

Now, businesses and individuals can't be certain they are going to get a tax break because of the stop-and-start, temporary nature of Congress reauthorizing these tax bills. Businesses and individuals need to know what the tax is going to be in the beginning of the year so that they can plan and take advantage of incentives rather than waiting until the last 2 weeks of the year when the Congress may or may not act.

This year, businesses that want to take advantage of the research tax credit have either been sitting on the sidelines or making investments or not making investments not knowing, or maybe they gambled and said: Well, we figure that Congress will do something some day.

Everyone should take note of today, the 3rd of December. Next year, right about this time, we will be right back here with the same bill-- we can have the same speeches put right out here--because we simply do not give businesses certainty. If we did, we would have the economy rolling better.

Individuals and businesses are going into this year wondering whether they will have to act retroactively on these provisions. I am going to vote ``yes'' like everybody else, but it makes no sense that you have a bill like this 28 days before the end of the year. You have got the IRS wondering if they are going to be able to do the tax stuff and all of this chaos that is created. There are calls coming into our office: Are you going to pass this? Are you going to pass that? What should I do for next year? The answer that a Congressman has to give if he is honest is, ``I don't know.''

This place is dysfunctional. It may be some of the explanation of why people didn't vote in the last election. They figured that Congress isn't going to do anything, and this is a perfect example of it. We should have done it a long time ago, and done it permanently.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on what could be the eve of a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran as U.S. and European and Iranian negotiators are going back to Vienna for a final round of talks.

With so much of the region in turmoil right now, it seems hard to imagine that we could be on the verge of, arguably, the most important diplomatic achievement in the Middle East in recent U.S. history. The leadership of President Obama, the tenacity of the U.S. negotiators, and the determination of President Rouhani and his team have set the stage for a landmark agreement that would turn the page on decades of distrust, dissension, and cynicism.

Here is what the nuclear deal would mean: a profound reduction in the decades-long tension between Iran, the U.S., and our allies that has set us on a path to war; a contained Iranian nuclear program with verifiable, internationally accepted limits; meaningful sanctions relief that bolsters Iran's flagging economy and allows U.S. businesses access to a potentially vibrant market; finally, an opening for a broader understanding between the U.S. and Iran, as well as an opportunity to work with Iran as an ally in the fight against ISIS.

Like all compromises, there may be parts of this deal that Americans won't like, and there may be parts of this deal that Iranians won't like, but such is the definition of cooperation--working together for something meaningful and building momentum toward a solution even when the easiest option is to get up and walk away.

President Obama deserves enormous credit for his steely resolve in pursuit of a nuclear deal, especially in the face of those hoping he will fail. If we do not reach a nuclear accord next week, if a deal is delayed, or if, heaven forbid, the talks collapse, I believe President Obama is still owed our thanks.

It has become fashionable around these halls and certainly in the media these days to deride the 44th President, to call him ``aloof'' when he acts methodically or to threaten impeachment when he acts decisively to promote the best interests of the American people. The fact that he has the audacity to try with persistence and openness, in the face of withering doubt from

friends and allies, is a mark of a true statesman. Many in this Chamber have already raised their strong objections, as we have recently heard, to a potential deal, and they make no secret of their thinking of President Obama as being on a fool's errand, but I am reminded of what Teddy Roosevelt said of leadership.

He said:

Credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,

whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood . . . who,

at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high

achievement and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least

fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be

with those cold and timid souls who seek neither victory nor

defeat.

President Obama deserves credit for what he is doing, and we wish him Godspeed in the negotiations as they come to their near end.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Act, two momentous accomplishments for the environmental movement at both the time of their signing and today.

The technology sector in my district is booming. People come to Seattle not just because of our vibrant technology ecosystem or our business- and worker-friendly environment. They also come because smart, forward-thinking people for the past 50 years have set aside open space--preserving farmland, building parks, and conserving habitat.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund helped conserve iconic natural treasures in all fifty states, including Mount Rainier National Park in the great state of Washington. I am a frequent visitor to the beautiful San Juan Islands, another Washington gem protected by the LWCF. The Wilderness Act enabled the highest levels of protection for the stunning Alpine Lakes Wilderness, a natural landscape Seattleites are fortunate to have in their backyard.

Programs like the Land and Water Conservation Act and the Wilderness Act are not just good for the environment; they are good for people and the economy. I commend those who enacted these programs half a century ago and those working to promote this work today. It is imperative that we continue the legacy of preserving America's rich and diverse natural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4994, the IMPACT Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation makes several small changes to improve post-acute care quality measures and reporting systems in Medicare.

This bill will lay the groundwork for future changes that will reform how Medicare pays for post-acute care.

This bill has support across the post-acute care community, including providers and beneficiaries.

This bill is budget neutral. In short, this is an innocuous bill.

Yet, the bottom line is this:

Congress must do more than pass small, innocuous bills. My constituents in Seattle--and constituents from coast to coast--are coping with a list of growing challenges.

Yet, this Congress is content to push the urgent work of tackling these challenges to another day.

Seniors, patients and doctors need Congress to find a permanent fix for the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate formula in Medicare.

American seniors deserve greater safety and security, but Congress' most recent SGR patch--thrown together last Spring--expires in March.

By then, Congress--just like the 17 times before--will be up against an urgent deadline and flailing to find a permanent solution.

American families need Congress to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program.

More than 8 million children and pregnant women access affordable health coverage through CHIP.

But federal funding faces a cliff next year, and this Congress isn't doing anything about it.

America needs a reenergized primary care workforce.

By 2020, our nation's health system will be staggered by a shortage of 45,000 primary care doctors.

But this Congress isn't talking about extending Medicaid payment parity before it expires in December.

This Congress isn't talking about reauthorizing the National Health Service Corps.

And this Congress certainly isn't talking about new ideas like R- DOCS--a program, modeled on our military's ROTC program, to train and place new primary care doctors where they are needed most.

Yes, we might pass legislation like the IMPACT Act this week. But the American people demand and deserve bolder action and bigger results from their Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to my constituent, the esteemed Speight Jenkins, on the occasion of his retirement from Seattle Opera. Throughout his 31 years as General Director, Mr. Jenkins' passion for the arts and energetic leadership style have been instrumental in the Opera's success. Under his steady guidance, Seattle Opera captured national and international attention and significantly raised the city's profile as an arts destination. Notably, Mr. Jenkins helped to intensify Seattle Opera's focus on Wagner, and presided over many superlative productions of the Wagner operas, which helped draw opera-lovers from all over the world. In fact, his captivating productions drew visitors to Seattle from all 50 states and over 60 countries, generating increased tourism and strengthening the local economy. Over the course of his career with Seattle Opera, Mr. Jenkins produced an incredible 1,227 performances of 92 operas, while missing only 6 performances.

Locally, The Seattle Times named Mr. Jenkins one of the 150 most influential people who have shaped the character of Seattle and King County. Additionally, both the City of Seattle and King County proclaimed August 9, 2014 ``Speight Jenkins Day'' in recognition of his work. Nationally, the National Endowment for the Arts gave him an Opera Honors Award in 2011, and Opera News has called him one of the 25 ``most powerful'' names in American opera. His knowledge of opera has tremendous depth, and is reflected in Seattle Opera's many innovative productions, significant publications, and comprehensive educational services.

An ardent lover of the arts, Speight Jenkins proudly served on the National Council on the Arts from 1996-2000 following his nomination by President Clinton, and has been a lifelong advocate for increased arts funding and opportunities on both a national and local level. He also played an important role in the creation of McCaw Hall, one of the nation's most beautiful and acoustically exceptional performance facilities.

Speight Jenkins has been an invaluable asset to the Seattle arts community. His dedication to excellence with Seattle Opera and commitment to making the arts accessible provide a model for us all. The people of Seattle are grateful for the guidance and leadership he has shown and I join them in thanking Mr. Jenkins for his service and in wishing him all the best in his future endeavors.