Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 5 weeks ago Dan and Sally

Sligh packed up their camper and headed out on Interstate 5 on the way to their favorite campsite in northwest Washington State. While crossing a bridge over the Skagit River that they'd safely crossed many times before, a large truck ahead of them clipped the bridge's frame above. Without warning, and without time to react, the pavement under Dan's pickup fell out from underneath them. Next, Dan said, ``It was just a white flash and cold water.''

Like thousands of my constituents, I myself have driven over that bridge many times. But now, today, no cars are crossing it. Recovery workers have been hard at work pulling pieces of that bridge, along with Dan's pickup, from the flowing waters of the Skagit River and quickly building a replacement span.

The fact that no one died in this collapse is a blessing, but not all have been so lucky. My colleagues will remember in 2007 when a bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minneapolis crashed during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring another 145.

Today I want to ask my colleagues a simple question: Shouldn't Americans be able to drive across a highway bridge with the reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath them?

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Skagit River bridge collapse. I spoke this morning to the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board about its investigation. I'm eager to read their report on the incident. But we already know that our aging infrastructure should be enough to make this Congress act.

Sixty-seven thousand bridges in our country are rated structurally deficient--67,000 bridges. When those bridges fall, it isn't just the unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. Whole economies that rely on safe and efficient transportation suffer.

The I-5 bridge over the Skagit River doesn't just connect Burlington and Mount Vernon; it connects the entire west coast and carries millions of dollars worth of trade between Canada and the U.S. Today, that trade is in stop-and-go traffic on local roads.

But here's the good news: we know how to build safe bridges. There are thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives to building good structures that don't fall down. But we need to pay for them. We need to maintain our bridges until they are old, and then we need to replace them. We can't keep waiting until they crumble into the water below.

President Obama wants to fix it first by spending $40 billion on highways, bridges, transit systems, and airports that are most in need of repair. That's a good start, and Congress should approve that funding. But if we're really going to do something about our long-term transportation needs, this body, this Congress, needs to get to work on a long-term transportation bill that doesn't just patch our aging roads, but invests in an infrastructure that meets the needs of America's 21st century economy. We can't have a big league economy with little league infrastructure.

Over Memorial Day, more than 31 million Americans hit the roads. I ask my colleagues: Were you among them? How many bridges did you drive over? How many were structurally deficient? If you think your constituents should be able to drive over a bridge without wondering whether it will crumble beneath them, then this Congress must act on a long-term transportation bill. It's time to put our money where our safety is.

Before we start patting each other on the back for this bill, I think it's important that we recognize that we are not fixing the bigger problems that the sequester has created.

Earlier this month, The Bellingham Herald reported that Head Start students in my district will have to begin finding their own way to school as bus service is being cut because of the sequester. Perhaps now we can ask these 4-year-olds to ride their tricycles to class or, because of this bill, maybe book a flight.

Children in military families at NAS Whidbey Island are going to go to schools where budgets are being cut because of reductions in Impact Aid mandated by sequestration, but we're not doing anything to help those kids today. We are not helping seniors in Arlington, Washington, who are getting Meals on Wheels no longer delivered to them.

This is not just my district. Every Member of this House represents a district whose kids and seniors are being hurt thanks to our failure to clean up the mess we caused. This lands somewhere short of a profile in courage. This is a Band-Aid, and sequestration needs triple bypass surgery. Sequestration is a little bit like the person who kicks a boulder and then blames the boulder for his broken toe. Congress created this problem. We need to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary accomplishment of the Western Washington University Vikings Ice Hockey team, which defended their national title at the National Association of Intercollegiate Hockey Championship on March 17.

Under the leadership of Head Coach John Dougan, the Vikings had a regular season record of 23 wins, four ties, four losses and a four- and-one record in the tournament. Western showed great heart and perseverance. After losing the first game of the tournament, they fought their way to the national championship.

Led by the strong play of Western goalie and the tournament's most valuable player Tyler Zetting, the Vikings concluded the tournament and defense of their national title with a two-to-one overtime win against top-ranked Le Moyne College.

We are proud of this team in Bellingham and across Northwest Washington and we look forward to their future successes on and off the rink.

I rise today in support of the bipartisan Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act that we will vote on.

We wouldn't be here today without the courage of victims from all of our communities--women and men who are rich and poor, immigrant, Native American, folks from the LGBT community--all of whom spoke out about their experiences. Domestic violence does not discriminate, and with this bill domestic violence protection will no longer discriminate. This bill improves protections for immigrants, for Native Americans, for members of the LGBT community.

In my district, Tulalip Tribes Vice Chair Deborah Parker has explained why these protections are so critical. She told me that, for far too long, Native American women have lacked serious protections on their reservations. This bill will make it easier for them to seek justice, and it also includes important amendments to improve the enforcement of the International Broker Regulation Act, a law that I sponsored in 2006.

Those amendments strengthen protections Congress put in place for immigrant women like Anastasia King, who was murdered in my district by her husband in 2000.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the House VAWA substitute and to pass S. 47.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for an opportunity to speak on this important resolution. I want to urge everyone to support its passage.

Finally, I want to thank the staff for its great work in putting this together. It's a bit of a dance to put all of the pieces together in legislation like this, but they did a great job, so I want to extend my thanks to them as well.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute my friend and colleague, Mr. Costello on over two decades of admirable service to our country and especially to the people of Southern Illinois.

I have been honored to serve with Mr. Costello as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where I have seen firsthand his skill at working on a bipartisan basis to improve our nation's transportation infrastructure. As the Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, his patience and willingness to work with all Members of Congress was critical in the passage of the recent Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill.

He has provided leadership, guidance and a long-term vision of how we can move our country forward. I am thankful for his friendship and advice over the years, and I wish him the best in his future steps.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3245, which would, in part, reauthorize the EB-5 visa program for 3 years. This EB-5 program will create good American jobs.

Last year, I worked with Senator Leahy to write H.R. 2972, the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Act. That legislation would have reauthorized EB-5 permanently. While the bill before us today extends the program for only 3 years, it is still an important job creator that we must pass. The program allows qualified foreign investors who invest in the U.S. and who create or save at least 10 full-time American jobs to seek U.S. visas. This program brings overseas capital to the U.S. to create jobs for people in my district and across America.

There are two projects in Everett, Washington, currently being financed through the EB-5 program. One is a college building. If this bill is not passed, our area will lose this building and the opportunities associated with it. The second investment is one for a building that houses a regional farmers' market, which is a project that has been in the works and is almost done. This project will help local farmers regionally and create jobs. If this bill is not passed, again, this project, which is set to be finished soon, will not be completed, and all finance and investments will be lost. In another part of my district, in Whatcom County, the local EB-5 center has leveraged more than $34 million from immigrant investors to create more than 800 good local jobs.

The EB-5 program is a real threefer: It's a win for American workers, who benefit from thousands of new jobs; it's a win for the taxpayer because it doesn't add one penny to the national deficit; third, it helps the U.S. compete on a global scale. The U.S. EB-5 visa program is one of more than 20 similar programs run by other important, growing economies like Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, and Singapore.

Our economy cannot afford to do without these investments or these jobs. If we don't keep this road open for foreign investment into the U.S., that investment will choose another country's road. Congress must extend the EB-5 program so that we can continue to create new jobs at a time when we need them most.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the objective of the legislation before the House today--to clarify the existing authority of public authorities to offer discounts in transportation tolls to residents of communities faced with limited transportation access and heavy toll burdens.

Last Congress, the House passed similar legislation. That legislation, at the time introduced by Mr. McMahon of New York, reaffirmed the authority of States and local governments to provide discounted fare or toll rates to residents faced with undue financial hardships imposed by highway and bridge tolls.

We recognize that the residents of Staten Island are forced to endure some of the highest toll burdens in the country. The legislation passed by the last Congress would have provided a targeted approach to address the unique challenges facing communities like Staten Island.

Unfortunately, unlike Mr. McMahon's bill from last Congress, H.R. 897 as currently drafted is overly broad and raises some potentially serious legal issues.

A number of highway user organizations, including the American Highway Users Alliance, have raised concerns that H.R. 897 could lead to discrimination against interstate commerce, and be used in an attempt to preclude constitutional challenges to an individual toll or fare discount program.

Unfortunately, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has not held any hearings to examine the potential implications of this legislation. The Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor with no notice, at least not to this side of the aisle, under suspension of the rules prior to the important issues raised by this bill being examined and, if necessary, addressed.

Mr. Speaker, the House should be considering legislation to simply reinforce the existing right of communities to reduce the extreme toll burdens borne by captive toll payers. We should not be considering legislation that could be used to implement programs that impede interstate commerce by encouraging States and public authorities to find ways to shift the burden of tolls to out-of-State residents, or truckers, for that matter, or those making longer through trips.

Not all residential-based toll discounts are fair or necessarily appropriate, but some are. The context and how they are implemented are important to determining if they are appropriate.

Unfortunately, as currently drafted, H.R. 897 could be used to remove any case that could be made against a toll discount program. In that sense, it is overly broad and unreasonable.

I would hope that as we move forward, we can address the concerns of the highway user community and ensure that this legislation is not used to preclude challenges to toll discount programs.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would just like to enter in the Record a letter from the American Highway Users Alliance dated August 1 expressing concerns about the legislation.

American Highway Users Alliance,

August 1, 2012.

Dear Member of Congress: This afternoon, under suspension

of the rules, the House will consider HR 897, the Residential

and Commuter Toll Fairness Act of 2011, sponsored by New York

City Representatives Grimm and Meeks. We write to express

serious concerns about this bill.

We are on record in support of greater tolling

accountability and fairness for commuters. For example, we

have endorsed HR 3684, the Commuter Protection Act, also

authored by Congressman Grimm. We share particular concerns

about the high costs of tolling for New York City residents.

However the provisions of HR 897 are not narrowly constructed

for New York's specific problems and have unintended

consequences for other toll-payers throughout the country.

HR 897 broadly authorizes local tolling discount programs.

If this bill were narrowly constructed to apply to places

like Staten Island, New York; where residents are only able

to access their homes and businesses via tolled bridges, our

concerns would be minimal. But HR 897 allows my State or

local jurisdiction to charge discriminatory toll rates for

non-residents, even on the National Highway System, and

regardless of circumstance or impact on interstate commerce.

In effect, this bill could actually encourage more tolls

for all and higher tolls for selected users, authorizing

locally popular tolling schemes that, in effect, overcharge

interstate and long distance travelers who have no vote at

the local ballot box.

If States and local governments widely adopt the practice

of tolling non-residents to pay higher rates than locals, it

could sharply increase the costs of interstate tourism and

freight. These are national concerns requiring caution from

Congress. The federal government has an obligation to

regulate interstate commerce. As such, HR 897 should be

revised to ensure that interstate and non-local traffic is

not treated unfairly, by State and local tolling authorities.

Sincerely,

Gregory M. Cohen,

President & CEO.

Second, I think the gentleman from New York makes a compelling case for why the bill should be more narrowly focused.

And third, Mr. Speaker, I may say things on the floor that people disagree with, but I do save my almost ridiculous statements for off the floor and not the floor of the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5797 exempts the owners and operators of small passenger vessels operating on Mille Lacs

Lake in central Minnesota from U.S. Coast Guard licensing and inspection requirements.

This bill provides rather narrow regulatory relief. However, because this bill was rushed to legislation, to markup without first having a hearing on the bill itself or having the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation consider the specific bill, no one can say for sure what consequences might arise in the future. My concerns are somewhat allayed by learning the State of Minnesota has an adequate program to regulate vessels operating on its inland lakes, including Mille Lacs.

Nonetheless, the Coast Guard has expressed concerns that the limitations imposed on its vessel safety authorities by this bill could create uncertainty and some confusion among the boating public, especially regarding marine casualty investigations and maritime liability.

Notwithstanding these objections, and because the bill, as reported, would no longer vacate the Coast Guard's 2010 determination that Mille Lacs Lake is navigable, I do not object to the bill moving forward today.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1171, bipartisan legislation that reauthorizes the Marine Debris Research Prevention and Reduction Act through fiscal year 2016.

Just this June, on the Pacific coast, an entire 70-foot dock washed up on the coast of Oregon. This is only one piece of the estimated 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the disastrous 2011 Japanese tsunami that will wash up on the west coast. Disasters like this are why it is so important that we reauthorize this legislation today.

Marine debris remains a persistent threat to maritime safety and to the health of our oceans and to our lakes.

Thanks to the enactment of the Marine Debris Research Prevention and Reduction Act in 2006, we now have a much better understanding of marine debris and its impact on our shorelines.

This law led to the establishment of effective partnerships between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the United States Coast Guard. It has led to better coordinated research and debris removal activities, and it built greater understanding of the challenges we face in addressing this threat.

Marine debris is a much larger and growing problem than we first thought, and with the recent disaster in Japan, it will continue to grow. Cleaning up marine debris takes coordination between several agencies and States and requires expensive resources to clean up.

Earlier this week, NOAA provided a new analysis estimating that it now costs the agency, on average, more than $4,300 to remove 1 ton of marine debris from the environment. NOAA also said that the dock that washed up on the shores of Oregon will cost $85,000 alone.

Despite what we've learned, and despite the fact that States on the Pacific coast and Hawaii will have to contend with 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the 2011 Japanese tsunami for years to come, the majority has insisted on cutting authorized funding levels for this program in half. Cutting authorized funding for this program at this time seems shortsighted, and I'm confident that the Senate will insist on the higher authorized funding level in any final compromise bill.

But despite those reservations about the reduced funding levels in this bill as reported by the majority, it is imperative that we reauthorize the Marine Debris Act today to address this growing threat in our future.

I want to thank the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1171.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Secretary Panetta and Secretary Shinseki.

More than 2 million American women and men are returning home from more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many are returning scarred, with lost limbs, brain injuries or mental illness. Too many are coming back to unemployment lines. And too many are struggling to keep their homes.

To address these problems, Congress and the administration have worked together to support veterans' needs through efforts like building more Department of Veterans Affairs community based outpatient clinics, like the one in Mount Vernon, Washington state. The VA, the Department of Defense, and National Institutes of Health are conducting state-of-the-art brain research to understand and find better treatments for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. And the VA and DoD are working together to provide more timely disability claims processing.

The passage of the Vow To Hire Heroes Act and the 21st Century GI Bill were important steps to help veterans translate their skills to civilian jobs. These programs provide career advice for transitioning servicemembers through the Transition Assistance Program and help veterans go back to school.

And we are supporting veterans housing through the Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH) program, which provides affordable housing vouchers and social services like case management. 100 homeless veterans in Skagit and Snohomish Counties have received HUD-VASH vouchers so far this year. Part of ending homelessness among veterans is prevention, and for that, VA and DOD recently began legal assistance programs to provide relief for veterans and servicemembers who were hurt by mortgage abuses and assist those seeking to refinance.

Still, there is more that we have to do, and I encourage all of us in this room to think of what we can do to help these veterans.

For example, in my district, we are reaching out to veterans, employers and educators to help veterans translate the skills they developed in the military to meet private sector needs, and help employers and educators understand the value of veterans' military training.

I look forward to hearing more about what the DoD and VA are doing to support veterans transitioning back to civilian life. With hard work and support from the government and local communities, these veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan can have a smooth transition back to civilian life, and our older veterans can get the support they deserve.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4078, which would cut critical regulations not with a scalpel but, like many have said, with a nuclear bomb. The transportation authorization bill, MAP-21, which this body passed with a widely bipartisan vote, included many important safety and efficiency regulations, but my amendment to exempt them was not made in order.

If signed into law, this bill would pull the emergency brake and stop safety regulations which were just enacted. One important regulation this bill would block is the installation of seatbelts in motorcoaches. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes these seatbelts could reduce the risk of fatalities in rollover crashes by 77 percent. Safety improvements like these will help prevent all too common transportation disasters, like the motorcoach crash in 2007 which killed 7 members of the Bluffton University baseball team in Ohio.

This is just a single example of the critical regulations that H.R. 4078 would halt indiscriminately. I urge the House to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, later today the House will take up a bill that is key for jobs now and for opportunity for the future.

First, we cannot have a big league economy with little league infrastructure. The transportation bill will do more to create jobs through public investment than any other piece of legislation that this House has passed in the last 18 months. It puts thousands to work repairing roads, bridges and highways, and maintaining our transit systems.

Second, this bill creates opportunity for the future by stopping a devastating interest rate hike on loans students take to pay for college. College affordability is a necessary step for creating opportunity for the future. The bill sends a clear message to college students everywhere that America will invest in you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to declare that the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act affirms there's no going back to the health care of 2009 or even to the health care of 1789. Improvements to health care are taking root right now in this country. That progress must continue. The Supreme Court decision today is a welcome victory for middle class families and bolsters the necessary changes taking place in health care today.

Now we must keep Medicare sustainable and affordable by closing the prescription drug doughnut hole and cracking down on fraud. Now we must make sure middle class families have diverse options for high-quality, affordable health care. Now we must ensure that we meet the needs of northwest Washington State seniors, veterans, and families. Northwest Washington has already seen improvement. Seniors in the Second District who were in the doughnut hole have saved more than $800 on prescription medications so far this year. More than 173,000 people in northwest Washington State have health insurance that covers preventive care without copays or deductibles.

It is time to move forward on health care. And today, America took a great step.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Black Motion to Instruct.

This motion is a step back for highway safety, and a step back for our country. This country has done a lot to improve highway safety in the last thirty years. We've mandated safety belt use. We've addressed our many of our most dangerous intersections and developed better signage and more visible traffic signals. And we created a federal mandate that raised the drinking age to 21.

But there are new challenges--and distracted driving is one of the most important. This motion is exactly the opposite of what we should be voting on.

We should be doing everything in our power to encourage responsible driving and protect lives. Couching this argument in the 10th amendment is simply cover for irresponsible legislation.

There are numerous grant programs throughout the federal government that provide funding for states based on national policies that Congress wants to advance. To single out a safety program is totally out of left field--or rather, right field in this case.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.