Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today I will vote in support of H.R. 1425, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act. I am pleased that this legislation bolsters the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and further protects it against years of attempts by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to undermine and repeal this important healthcare legislation--and thus take away health coverage and protections from millions of Americans--all without ever proposing a viable replacement. The timing of this legislation could not be more crucial. Just last week, in the midst of a global pandemic that has killed more than 120,000 Americans and threatened the health insurance coverage of millions more, the Trump administration filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court supporting a case that would fully repeal the ACA. This reckless and heartless move would strip healthcare coverage from an estimated 23 million Americans and threaten coverage for 135 million Americans with pre-existing medical conditions--all while delivering a huge tax cut to millionaires. In my congressional district alone, repealing the ACA would cause 72,000 Oregonians to lose their health insurance and threaten the coverage of 317,000 Oregonians with pre- existing conditions. This is absurd. That's why I strongly support H.R. 1425's provisions to strengthen protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, as well as its reversal of the Trump administration's expansion of junk short-term health insurance plans that do not provide coverage for essential medical treatments and drugs--and which are allowed to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. I am also pleased that this legislation increases healthcare coverage by delivering additional support for states to expand Medicaid, establish state-based health insurance marketplaces, and bolster efforts to increase enrollment and help individuals sign up for ACA coverage. I also strongly support this legislation's efforts to lower Americans' health insurance costs by expanding tax credits to reduce ACA marketplace premiums, placing a cap on premium costs, allowing more individuals and families to qualify for ACA subsidies, and providing funding for reinsurance initiatives to further lower premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs. This legislation also takes long-overdue steps to help combat inequalities in health coverage faced by communities of color in Oregon and throughout the United States. This includes fighting the maternal mortality epidemic by requiring states to extend Medicaid or CHIP coverage to new mothers for 1-year post-partum; improving Medicaid beneficiaries' access to primary care physicians; and protecting vulnerable populations from losing health coverage by ensuring that Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries receive a full 12 months of coverage once enrolled--thereby protecting them from interruptions due to fluctuations in their income throughout the year. I have always said that the ACA is not perfect, but I believe the law should be reformed rather than repealed. The original ACA bill that passed the House in 2009, with national exchanges and a government not- for-profit option, was far superior than the final bill that became law. In my opinion, a government-run, not-for-profit health plan would have paved the way to a single-payer system with more comprehensive coverage at a lower cost. That's why I have once again introduced legislation, H.R. 1419, that would establish such a plan and bring down premium costs. I am also once again an original cosponsor of H.R. 1384, the Medicare for All Act, which would transition the U.S. to a universal single- payer system to ensure that everyone has access to health insurance coverage, no matter their income. Additionally, because of pharmaceutical companies' price gouging, Americans pay more out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than individuals in any other country. Americans need lower drug prices now, and Congress has the ability to enact important reforms to deliver immediate relief. By incorporating provisions from H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act--which passed the House in December--I believe H.R. 1425 takes some important first steps towards delivering drug price relief and improving the health and financial security of American seniors and families. Specifically, H.R. 1425 requires the federal government to negotiate affordable prices for at least 25--and eventually 50--prescription drugs, as well as insulin, every year. It also imposes an excise tax on drug manufacturers who do not comply with this affordable pricing provision. While I believe these provisions will ultimately deliver relief to millions of Americans, including seniors, I believe Congress can and must do more to combat rising drug prices and price-gouging pharmaceutical companies. To combat this ridiculous practice, I reintroduced H.R. 4640, the Affordable Drug Pricing for Taxpayer-Funded Prescription Drugs Act, which would end price-gouging on prescription drugs developed with taxpayer-funded research. Americans should not pay to develop a drug only to see it put on the shelves in the U.S. at a much higher price than other nations. I am also co-leading legislation, the Make Medications Affordable by Preventing Pandemic Pricegouging Act, to prevent price-gouging for any taxpayer-funded drug or vaccine developed to treat COVID-19. Moreover, I have consistently supported legislation to allow the federal government to negotiate affordable drug prices for Medicare Part D, and I am also cosponsor of legislation to require the federal government to secure affordable pricing agreements for all prescription drugs, as well as to approve cheaper generic versions of drugs if manufacturers refuse to negotiate. The bottom line is that seniors shouldn't have to ration their pills or limit their dosage because they can't afford to pay for prescriptions each month, and drug companies should not be free to charge Medicare recipients--or any American--prices that are higher than anywhere else in the world. These practices are wholly unacceptable, and I will continue fighting to ensure that every American can afford the prescription drugs they need.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago, our nation watched in horror as a white Minneapolis, MN police officer murdered George Floyd. His murder, and those of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbury, Rayshard Brooks, and far too many others, serve as a sobering reminder of the original sin on which our nation has been built--the brutal legacy of slavery, segregation, oppression, and discrimination spanning more than 400 years. In the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, thousands of Americans peacefully assembled in every state and the District of Columbia to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest and petition their government for change. My hometown, which has a proud tradition of civic participation and free speech expression, saw the largest protest in our history as residents demanded immediate justice and reform. On Tuesday, June 23, I held a listening session with Black Lives Matter activists, community organizers, and local officials to discuss systemic racism, police brutality, and what it will take to heal the deep wounds that still ail our nation. This session was powerful and moving, cementing my commitment to the eradication of racism in every corner of the nation. Racism is present in nearly every institution, every system. One individual, whose family has lived in Oregon for generations, shared her family's experience growing up in segregated Eugene, OR. Her mother's two sisters, only four and six years old, were hit by a fast- moving vehicle and when community members called for help, no ambulance came. They both died. Why? Because the victims were two black girls. They were seen as less than human, and our public safety response treated them like they were. Racism is present in our public safety and emergency response. A member of the CAHOOTS Crisis Response team also joined our discussion. CAHOOTS is a nonprofit in our district which provides mental health crisis intervention. Last year alone, CAHOOTS responded to roughly 20 percent of the area's 911 and public safety calls. She shared how just a few weeks ago, she convinced an armed black man in crisis--surrounded by armed police--to disarm himself. She then escorted him to her van, uncuffed, and helped him receive the mental health intervention he needed. CAHOOTS is a model for what our future public safety response could look like, and heroes like her exemplify how an armed response may not always be the best or most appropriate response. One activist spoke about her experience with racism in professional spaces. She told me about how her identity as a Black woman made her supervisors scrutinize her work more heavily and less willing to help when employees of color were dealing with personal struggles. Racism is present in our workplaces. One community leader, joined by a separate activist, discussed disparities in mental health and how our healthcare system often fails Black Americans and people of color. They called for the creation of institutions that specialize in delivering mental health care to people of color because it's clear: racism is present in our healthcare system and its consequences can be fatal. Racism is present in nearly every sector of American life, and everywhere around our nation, including in the progressive communities of Eugene and Springfield, where I call home. It is abundantly clear we have reached a tipping point. Americans will no longer tolerate antiquated systems of oppression. They are demanding that their government act, and I have heard their calls. I am committed to proactively working to dismantle institutional racism and oppression. It will take anti-racist policy and direct action to finally exorcise these evils and heal the wounds they created. We must rethink and reform our institutions. The Justice in Policing Act is a critical first step; but make no mistake, much more work needs to be done. We must look at increasing funding for alternative public safety programs. We must fight racism in every corner of the country. It is a cancer. Too long it has been ignored and allowed to grow and divide out of control. We must, and we will, take a stand here and now. Enough is enough.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, October 2001, under the shadow of 9/11, with the House office buildings evacuated because of the threat of anthrax, a bill authored by Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and the Bush White House was brought before the House. It was called the USA PATRIOT Act. Now, who could, in the shadow of 9/11, vote against anything called the USA PATRIOT Act? Well, I did, as did 66 other Members; 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, and 1 Independent, because of the unbelievably, unconstitutionally broad powers that would be granted for surveillance of all the American people in myriad ways. Now, there wasn't even a copy of the bill available. I came to the floor, and I said: Can I have a copy of the bill? They said: Sorry, there is only one. It is on the Republican side. I said: Well, it is not the Senate. I can't filibuster, but I will make it a long day with the adjournment votes. Get me a copy. They printed out a copy, it was hot off the Xerox. I got rushed on this side by Members of the Judiciary Committee who ostensibly authored the bill to try and find out what the heck was in it, but people still voted for it. The abuses that have come under this are myriad and well-documented. Now, I credit Zoe Lofgren for trying to amend the most egregious section, 215, and my colleague, Ron Wyden from Oregon. Senator Wyden almost succeeded in the Senate, short one vote. And Zoe tried on the last reauthorization and this one to amend that. Unfortunately, she was pressured by and forced to, since otherwise they would block her amendment, to water down her revisions to section 215. Now, Senator Wyden is opposed, as are others. What is section 215? Unbelievably broad, warrantless, intrusive, internet searches of everything you look at, browse online. For what purpose? Who knows? What are they going to do with that information? Well, maybe they are going to apply an algorithm and find something. They gather so much data, they don't know what to do with it. What is the legal standard? A presumption of relevance to an investigation. Isn't that a laughable standard? You could presume relevance to virtually anything in the world at any time. So this bill, even if that amendment should pass, even if the bill comes up today--it is questionable whether it will. We now have government by tweet on that side of the aisle. Trump says jump; they jump. And last night, Trump said he is against this, even though it has a special provision in the bill for President Trump because of the Carter Page abuses. It says the ``Attorney General,'' in quotes--by the way, that means any senior official in the Justice Department--would have to sign off on targeting Federal officials or candidates for office. First off, why should those people be exempt if they are engaged in terrorist activities or presumptive relevance of terrorist activities? But, again, ``Attorney General,'' with this laughable clown in the Attorney General's Office who jumps even higher than they do when the President tweets, I don't think so. Just think of how they could use that politically, not for intelligence purposes. It does nothing to reform section 702, which is incidental backdoor accumulation of data. There are many, many documented abuses of section 202. It does finally do away with what was revealed by Mr. Snowden, the massive gathering of all phone records. Again, what are they going to do with it? Hundreds of millions of records, no effective algorithms, no way to figure out what it was about. It was useless, operationally, as analyzed by numerous commissions and others, but there was still massive compliance and errors. Even the NSA said: No, we don't want that anymore; we can't do anything with it. But the administration asked that it be continued. This bill doesn't continue it, one of the few merits of this so-called reform bill. This bill does not deserve passage. It does not undo the damage that was created in the shadow of 9/11, to the ignorance of most Members of Congress who voted for it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote in support of H.R. 6800, the Heroes Act. With more than 80,000 Americans tragically dead, more than 1.3 million sick, and more than 36 million out of work in the past eight weeks because of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about the staggering scale of this crisis. It demands extraordinary urgency and action from Congress. As the Republican-controlled Senate continues to stonewall additional relief legislation, going so far as to say states should just go bankrupt, I am proud that the House has put together an urgently-needed package to protect the lives and livelihoods of the American people from the devastation of the coronavirus crisis. This legislation is not perfect, but it is designed to deliver effective and immediate relief to families and workers in need. After hearing from dozens of my own local and county officials about the dire need, I am proud that the Heroes Act includes nearly $1 trillion in relief funding to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. This funding will help our state and local governments pay vital workers like first responders, teachers, and health care workers. The Heroes Act also puts us on a science-based path to safely reopen the country with billions for testing, contact tracing, research, and treatment, and it grants additional, much-needed relief to hospitals and health care providers. It also ensures that every American can access free coronavirus treatment, and it creates a new special enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges to help the uninsured get coverage. As Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I authored provisions to strengthen working and travel conditions for those in the transportation sector, including requirements on masks/ face coverings for workers and passengers on commercial U.S. flights, Amtrak trains, and certain public transit. I was also able to secure language to increase the federal cost share for emergency declarations under FEMA to 100 percent federal so state and local governments aren't saddled with extra bills as their own budgets are hammered by this crisis. I also worked with Chairman Pallone to include provisions to provide financial assistance to low-income and other adversely affected consumers to assist with payments for drinking water and wastewater expenses during the pandemic. With millions of essential workers on the frontlines every day, I am pleased that this legislation would strengthen safety measures by mandating a strong, enforceable workplace safety standard from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This legislation would also ensure that these frontline, essential workers receive well- deserved hazard pay. The Heroes Act also includes vital, direct relief to millions of Americans, including additional direct impact payments, critical supports to assist renters and homeowners with making monthly rent and mortgage payments, expansion of our nation's nutrition programs as families continue to line up at food banks, debt reduction for student borrowers who are facing economic distress as a result of the crisis, and an extension of vital safety-net unemployment benefits through January. This legislation also makes critical fixes to the Payroll Protection Program and resolves many of the challenges and flexibility issues Tribal communities are encountering when using federal relief funding. The Heroes Act also provides $25 billion to preserve the U.S. Postal Service and blocks the Trump administration's attempts to cripple this essential service, while also including protections for our democracy with critical new resources to expand voting access and ensure safe elections during this pandemic. Americans should never have to choose between their health and their fundamental right to vote. While I am strongly supportive of these and other provisions in the Heroes Act, I believe this legislation could have included proposals which would deliver more effective, streamlined, and accountable relief by keeping employees tied to their employers. One such proposal is the Paycheck Guarantee Act (PGA), which I believe is more comprehensive than an expansion of the Employee Retention Tax Credit and is estimated to save the government billions of dollars. Similar to the airline relief provisions in the CARES Act that I authored, I believe the PGA would largely end mass layoffs, keep workers paid and connected to their health care and other benefits, prevent employers of all sizes from being forced to close permanently, and ensure that the economy is ready to restart when the pandemic ends. Additionally, at least 27 million Americans have lost their employer- based health insurance due to layoffs or furloughs during the pandemic. While I believe it is important that the Heroes Act would allow many of these individuals to maintain their insurance through COBRA subsidies, there are millions more laid-off Americans who would remain uninsured because they were not fortunate enough to have employer-sponsored health care before the pandemic. That's why I support an expansion of Medicare, which would help ensure that everyone has access to health insurance during and after this pandemic, regardless of their employment status or employer-based benefits. I am also disappointed that this legislation does not include the $26 billion my colleagues and I had pushed to allow extension of grant research funding. Right now, the grant funding continues to flow, but because of the public health risks due to COVID, many researchers are not able to perform their research before the grant period ends, threatening their employment. While it does include $4.2 billion, the lack of more robust funding will mean researchers in my district in Oregon will lose funding for their projects, and, ultimately, their jobs. However, it is abundantly clear that there is a need for Congress to act immediately to deliver robust aid to the American people. The Heroes Act is a critical step in our nation's recovery, and I urge our Senate colleagues to waste no time in taking up this vital legislation. We must act--any delay will cause unnecessary and avoidable harm to our fellow citizens.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 266--the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. This legislation builds upon and makes a number of important improvements to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which Congress passed less than a month ago to help our country continue the fight against COVID-19. Specifically, this legislation adds more than $300 billion to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which has provided a critical lifeline to small businesses around the country as we continue to deal with the economic fall-out from this global pandemic. I am proud that Democrats stood our ground and were able to carve out $60 billion from this fund for small and mid-sized banks, credit unions, and community-based lending institutions to help ensure that unbanked and underserved businesses can access the PPP. This includes minority-owned businesses, rural businesses, small `mom and pop' businesses, and smaller nonprofits that too often have been pushed to the back of the line for this program, while billion-dollar chains have accessed funding. I am also pleased that this legislation includes $60 billion for SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) and Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Grant program. I have heard from dozens of businesses who applied for EIDL relief only to never hear back from an overwhelmed and underfunded SBA. This funding will allow these emergency programs to provide flexible assistance to small businesses and nonprofits. Again, thanks to congressional Democrats, this legislation also includes an additional $75 billion in relief to hospitals and health care providers for expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19. While I believe we need much more than $75 billion, these additional funds will be crucial for helping providers who are bearing the brunt of this crisis, including Community Health Centers and rural providers who are facing layoffs and massive revenue shortfalls due to cancellation of `elective' procedures. Congressional Democrats also fought for and secured $25 billion to expand our nation's COVID-19 testing capacity, $11 billion of which will go directly to states, localities, territories, and tribes to help them bolster testing shortfalls in their communities. Widespread testing is the key to fighting this virus, reopening the economy, and protecting the health and wellbeing of Americans so that we can safely begin to resume our normal lives. We also successfully inserted provisions to require the Trump administration to finally create a national strategic testing plan that details how our country will increase domestic testing capacity, address disparities, and provide assistance and resources to states, localities, territories, and tribes. This legislation is not without glaring omissions, though. Unfortunately, despite bipartisan support for additional funding, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans refused to add any additional funding for state, local, and tribal governments. These entities--who are on the front lines of this crisis--are in a dire financial position. I will continue to push for this desperately-needed investment and to ensure that funding flows directly to smaller localities. Future legislation must also ensure strong support for families with an increase to SNAP benefits to help put food on the table. Republicans stonewalled all efforts to include this increase in this legislation. For our front-line workers, we are simply not doing enough to support them. We need to ensure that any additional legislation mandates that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implements a robust emergency temporary standard to strengthen protective measures for our health care workers, first responders, postal carriers, retail employees, grocery workers, transportation workers, and more. We should also be supporting these individuals with hazard pay as they continue to report to work and risk exposure to COVID-19 in order to perform their essential duties for the betterment of our communities. Congress must also address the critical situation the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is in. Despite bipartisan support for stronger relief, the administration forced weak and restrictive aid for USPS into the CARES Act. Without significant steps, the Postal Service could cease operations by June. For the millions of people who count on the USPS every day--including seniors and veterans--this is not an option. We can and must also give additional, direct support to the American people. This includes additional economic impact payments, more comprehensive relief for homeowners and renters, stronger steps for the millions of student loan borrowers, and more. Congress should also finally take up legislation to reform enormously important issues like prescription drug costs and surprise billing. These issues have long plagued our broken healthcare system, and they will continue to do so once we beat this virus. Lastly, we must begin moving to the next phase of this crisis: economic recovery. Congress must pass legislation that creates jobs and rebuilds our decaying infrastructure. As Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I will continue to push for an infrastructure package that repairs the breach left by years of neglect--that rebuilds failing bridges, restores crumbling highways, and puts people to work on projects with jobs that cannot be exported.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 748, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This economic stimulus represents a wartime level investment in our nation as we continue our fight against an invisible enemy: COVID-19. Public health experts agree the consequences of the virus will only get more devastating in the coming days. People we know and love will get sick. People we know and love may die despite the heroic efforts of our health care workers who are on the front lines, sacrificing the health of themselves and their families to give their neighbors and communities a fighting chance. We also know that the financial fall-out from this crisis is unprecedented. On Thursday, the Department of Labor announced that nearly 3.3 million people lost their job the prior week, an unfortunate record number of claims. Through no fault of their own, millions of Americans were sidelined by a vicious virus that has brought our economy to a stunning but necessary halt as we work to ``flatten the curve'' to protect our health and safety. Our next steps in this battle--to both contain the virus and prevent further layoffs--are critical. And while Members of Congress can't be the experts in the lab developing a vaccine, or flying the cargo planes with medical supplies, there is something we can do today: get desperately needed funding and medical supplies to hospitals and frontline healthcare workers, and provide critical relief to the millions of laid-off workers and small business owners who are hurting right now. Now, without question, the bill the Senate sent us isn't perfect. Remember, the Republican starting point was a massive corporate slush fund with no transparency, accountability, or worker protections. But we could not allow a repeat of the failed bailout of 2008. I'm proud to be part of the Democratic negotiating team that protected jobs because we know that putting working people and families first is how we as a country can get back on our feet. Prioritizing their needs over the profits of giant corporations is how we build an economy that works for everyone--not just a wealthy few. This bill will put checks in the mail to 80 percent of Americans who make under six figures, and it will boost critical benefits for anyone who lost their job amid this crisis. We fought hard so this bill will ensure millions of bus drivers, train operators, railroad workers, flight crews, airline ground workers, airport workers, and more not only remain on the job but keep as many of their hard-earned health and retirement benefits as possible during this crisis. The relief in this package flows to workers first, not last--and it makes clear to any industry getting relief: no stock buybacks, no executive giveaways, no layoffs. Workers first--period. For the millions who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, this legislation vastly strengthens and makes critical reforms to Unemployment Insurance programs--ensuring 100 percent wage replacement for the average American worker struggling without a paycheck during this crisis. It also provides federal incentives for states to eliminate waiting week requirements, expands access to part-time, self- employed, and gig economy workers, and adds an additional 13 weeks of federally-funded UI benefits. To support the many small businesses across the country that have been forced to shutter, the bill designates $350 billion worth of 100 percent guaranteed SBA loans, a portion of which SBA will be able to forgive. These loans will be up to $10 million and provide incentives to keep employees on the payroll and pay them at their regular salary levels. For our state, local, and tribal governments, this legislation establishes a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund so that they have desperately needed additional funding to build field hospitals, buy ventilators and other personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as offset the cost of other essential government services not budgeted in the wake of the economic downturn. While this fund is a good start, we must do more to ensure our localities, especially those in rural areas, have what they need in this fight. It allows for the temporary suspension of excise taxes on spirits for those used in the production of hand sanitizer in compliance with guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), like Swallowtail and Thinking Tree Spirits in my district in Oregon. The CARES Act provides $1 billion for the Defense Production Act, allowing the Department of Defense to invest in the manufacturing of PPE and other critical medical equipment in short supply. While this isn't the $3.5 billion allocated for the DPA in the House bill, it is still a notable sum to ramp up production for PPE and other supplies. The President should have unleased the full power of the Defense Production Act (DPA) weeks ago. He still hasn't, and his lack of leadership means health care workers and their patients are suffering because there are not enough ventilators, PPE, or other medical supplies. I am continuing to call on the President to immediately ramp up domestic production of these crucial supplies. This legislation also provides much-needed help to hospitals and healthcare providers by allocating $100 billion to cover unreimbursed health care-related expenses and lost revenues attributable to COVID- 19. It also increases Medicare reimbursement for treatment of inpatient COVID-19 patients by 20 percent, and it allocates more than $27 billion for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, investing billions into vaccines and therapeutics and $16 billion into the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). It mandates all private insurance plans to cover testing for COVID-19 without cost-sharing and provides free coverage for a COVID-19 vaccine or other preventive service within 15 days. It also protects the uninsured by allowing them to receive a coronavirus test and related services with no cost-sharing in any state Medicaid program that elects to offer such an enrollment option. To protect and bolster our frontline health care workers, rural providers, and the health care of those with most need, the bill invests $1.32 billion in supplemental funding for Community Health Centers; reauthorizes Human Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grant programs; reauthorizes HRSA grants to strengthen rural community health; expands telehealth capabilities; grants liability protections to doctors who provide volunteer medical services; and establishes a Ready Reserve Corps to ensure there are enough trained doctors and nurses to respond to COVID-19 throughout our country. To protect our students and schools, this package provides $30.75 billion for an Education Stabilization Fund for states, school districts, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) for COVID-19 costs. $13.5 billion will ultimately be distributed to local education agencies to use for coronavirus response activities. $14.25 billion will be used for higher education emergency relief to help defray costs, such as lost revenue, to support social distancing and distance education, and to issue emergency grants to impacted students for food, housing, course materials, tech, and healthcare and childcare. The package also bolsters programs that America's families depend on by: providing billions for childcare programs such as Head Start and the Child Care Development Block Grant, strengthening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through billions in additional funding, providing millions for utility assistance through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and extending the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In a bid to keep Americans housed during this crisis, the CARES Act institutes a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for renters and homeowners in federally subsidized housing. The bill also provides $4 billion in Emergency Solution Grants and $3 billion in rental assistance to help those most at-risk of homelessness or who have already become homeless. It also provides $5 billion for the Community Development Block Grant to enable nearly 1,240 states, counties, and cities to rapidly respond to COVID-19 and the economic and housing impacts caused by it. The investments this bill makes are critical, they are bipartisan, and they are desperately needed. However, there are areas where the legislation falls short. The bill fails to help the U.S. Postal Service and its millions of employees--employees who are ensuring medicine and supplies are delivered for those staying at home. In protecting our public Postal Service, the bill fails utterly--providing a $10 billion line of credit with onerous terms and conditions of accessing said credit set by the Treasury Secretary. There are reports noting the Postal Service may cease operations by June because of lack of funds. The House bill included $20 billion for the Postal Service in lost revenues due to COVID-19 impacts, forgave their current debt to the Treasury, and opened up a $15 billion line of credit should they need to access it. I will work with my colleagues to make sure the needs of the Postal Service are addressed in future COVID-19 response packages. We all depend on it now more than ever. We can and must do more to help our Postal Service. Issuing a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures in federally assisted housing was a great first step, but more must be done to ensure that Americans are able to keep their homes while our current crisis rages on. We must provide relief to renters and homeowners in the commercial market. I am calling for a national moratorium on mortgage payments, rental payments, eviction filings, and foreclosures. We can and must do more to help Americans stay housed. The House proposal was far superior in providing relief to the millions of students and student loan borrowers who are being profoundly hurt by the crisis. Democrats proposed paying $10,000 of every student loan borrower's current balance and would have directed the Treasury to cover monthly payments for private borrowers for the span of the crisis. We can and must do more to help student loan borrowers. As public health experts recommend drastic social distancing measures, House Democrats took steps to protect the integrity of our elections and the health of the people by fighting for a national, no- excuse, prepaid, vote-by-mail guarantee. This provision was not included in the Senate package. We can and must do more to protect the integrity of our 2020 elections. To help Americans keep food on the table, House Democrats proposed raising the minimum SNAP benefit from $18 to $30 and blocked the Trump administration from implementing harmful guidelines that could kick 3 million people off of SNAP--even while our nation reels from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 outbreak. SNAP works--we already know every $1 spent generates $1.70 in economic activity. Sadly, these provisions were not included in the CARES Act. We can and must do more to keep Americans fed. While I also applaud the extension of numerous crucial healthcare programs in this bill, which were set to expire on May 22, we can't forget that these extensions will delay needed debate and reforms on enormously important issues like prescription drug costs and surprise billing. These issues long plagued our broken healthcare system before COVID-19, and they will continue to do so once we beat this virus. I look forward to finally addressing these long-overdue issues once this crisis is over. But such is the nature of compromise. In divided government, you don't always get what you fight for. But that does not mean you stop fighting. This CARES Act, with all its flaws, is triage: keep workers on the job and avoid economic collapse. Beyond addressing some of these shortcomings I've mentioned, our next step is recovery and rehabilitation--a true stimulus that creates jobs and rebuilds our decaying infrastructure. In the coming days and weeks, I will double down on an infrastructure package that repairs the breach left by years of neglect--that rebuilds failing bridges, restores crumbling highways, and puts people to work on projects with jobs that cannot be exported. But let me be absolutely clear--we have a long way to go to address what truly ails the United States economy: corporate greed. COVID-19 is the virus we are battling right now, but our economy has been sick for a very long time. Corporate greed, Wall Street demands that consistently puts profits over people, nearly 2 trillion dollars in Trump tax cuts that went straight to the top--all of that is symptomatic of a system that for far too long has kept working people down even as the stock market soared. We need a system that always puts workers and families first--not just during a national emergency and not just when it's politically convenient. I'll always be ready to roll up my sleeves for that fight.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented challenge to the health and economic well-being of the United States of America, and I am proud to be a Member of the House today here to address this. There are numerous provisions of this bill with which I disagree, and I know there are numerous provisions that my Republican colleagues disagree with, but let's put it a little bit in perspective. After 9/11, we bailed out the airlines, and they got a bunch of cash. What did they do then? They declared bankruptcy, and they preserved their assets--except not their most valuable assets. They screwed their employees. They lost their pensions; they lost their stock options; and they lost their jobs. I remember talking to a 55-year-old flight employee who had been flying 25 years. She said: Now I have to fly 10 more just to get the guaranteed pension at 35 percent of what I would have gotten. Mr. Speaker, that can't happen again. Then, in 2008, Hank Paulson came to us, and he said: Just give me the key to the Treasury, and I will take care of this. Well, for 1 day in the House of Representatives, we stood strong, and we defeated that. Two days later, we came back with something a little bit better but nowhere near adequate. We need to learn from those mistakes. That was supposed to save people's homes and their jobs. Millions lost their homes, their jobs, and their pensions. But Wall Street, hey, they prospered. Never again. We started a week ago with Secretary Mnuchin proposing the same thing that Hank Paulson proposed--they all come from Wall Street--a couple of decades ago. The Democrats fought back. We said: No, it is going to be workers and families first. This is a different kind of recovery package. It is an ultimate bipartisan product. It passed the Senate unanimously, and it emphasizes payrolls--maintaining payrolls and maintaining benefits. It is going to get help to small businesses, from individual owners to larger businesses. It is going to target people with extended and enhanced unemployment benefits. Some who work in the gig economy wouldn't be eligible for anything. They are totally out. So, these are really good things in this bill. The aviation section should be a model for any industry that gets money from the funds that Mnuchin distributes. There are two packages. One is a payroll passthrough to keep the people working, keep their benefits, and keep their pay. The other part is heavily conditioned loans: no stock buybacks, no dividends, no executive bonuses, and no bankruptcy for a year after you take these loans. Keep the industry intact. It is vital. And $3 billion goes to the contract workers and the service workers, who are the most abused people in the industry. They are the ones whom you never see who keep the plane clean, who load the food, and who move your bags and do everything else. They push the wheelchairs. They get rotten pay. They get assistance in this bill. So, this will keep the framework of this industry alive. COVID-19 is what we are battling now, but we have been battling something else in our economy for a long time: corporate greed. Wall Street demands to put profits over people. $2 trillion in tax cuts went to the people at the top. For too long, the working people of this country have been ignored. Not this time. We need a system that always puts workers and families first, not just during a national emergency and not just when it is politically convenient. I am ready at any time to roll up my sleeves for that fight.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on March 9, I was unable to be present and missed the following votes due to my attendance at the Transportation Trades Department Executive Committee Meeting on official duties. If present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 91, and YEA on Roll Call No. 92.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As a little bit of history, the gentleman from Alabama wasn't here when we created the Transportation Security Administration. It was created in the Aviation Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I was the ranking member; John Mica was the chair. The provisions he referenced were not intended to oppress the workforce. Before 9/11, all of the securities were provided by the airlines, and they never met a low bidder they didn't like. We had people who were felons and people who were in the country illegally who were doing the screening. By the way, it was the lowest entry-level job in the airport, and we had testimony from the Screener of the Year, once, who said: Hey, you know, people just move through these jobs because they got to go to McDonald's. They'll do better. Now, we aren't treating these professionals much better than that. They are the lowest paid Federal employees, providing security to the billion people who flew last year. They worked through the shutdown with no pay. They don't earn much money, so they don't have a lot of savings, but they worked through the shutdown. These people deserve not only a pay raise, but they also deserve workers' rights and whistleblower protections from abusive management. The gentleman expressed concern about $1.8 billion over 10 years. Well, join me on my FASTER bill; that is, this administration is diverting $2 billion a year in passenger security fees. Passengers pay the fee. It is supposed to provide security. No, it is going into the maw of the Federal Government and being spent somewhere else. Reclaim that money. Don't worry about the stupid scoring stuff. Oh, it is making the deficit look smaller. Whatever. We are charging passengers for security. Give them the security. Give these workers a pay raise, and give them decent workers' rights and protections.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I will vote in support of H.R. 2339, the Protecting American Lungs and Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2020. Despite a previous years-long decline in youth tobacco use, we have witnessed a sharp rise in youth tobacco use and nicotine addiction in recent years. At the heart of this trend are flavored e-cigarettes, which Big Tobacco companies have marketed toward young people in their ongoing drive to increase their profits at the cost of public health. I believe H.R. 2339 takes important steps toward tackling the youth tobacco epidemic and curtailing Big Tobacco's unfettered promotion of these highly addictive products, including closing loopholes in current law that cover traditional tobacco products but not e-cigarettes. This includes H.R. 2339's provisions to prohibit the marketing, advertising, and promotion of e-cigarette products to individuals under 21 years of age; ban online sales of e-cigarettes; close a tax loophole for e-cigarettes by establishing tax parity with current tobacco taxes; apply graphic health warnings to cigarette packages; and provide funding for tobacco cessation research, therapies, and counseling, as well as for outreach and grants to medically underserved communities. I also support provisions in H.R. 2339 which would waive Medicare's coinsurance requirements for colorectal cancer screening and increase access to asthma medications. While I will vote in support of H.R. 2339, I believe important improvements could have been made to strengthen the overall bill. For example, in light of the legislation's ban on all tobacco flavors--including menthol--I strongly opposed the inclusion of a provision that creates a discriminatory exemption for premium cigars. This clearly unfair provision protects the tobacco habits of wealthier individuals--who use premium cigars at higher rates--while imposing new restrictions on tobacco products that low-income individuals and communities of color are more likely to use. I also believe H.R. 2339 should have contained stronger provisions to alleviate criminal justice concerns that this legislation could disproportionately impact people of color, increase criminal penalties in state and localities across the country, and potentially encourage harmful police practices. Additionally, while I am pleased H.R. 2339 takes vital steps to address the youth tobacco epidemic, this legislation unfortunately does not address the disturbing outbreak of vaping-related lung illnesses and deaths that we witnessed in recent months. The CDC found that these deaths and illnesses stemmed primarily from black market THC-containing e-cigarettes with vitamin E acetate--an additive that can damage lungs when inhaled. Despite these concerns, I believe the clear public health benefits of this legislation outweigh its faults. There is no time to waste. I will not stand idly by while corporate greed and Big Tobacco marketing tactics threaten to engulf yet another generation to the ravages of addiction, cancer, stunted brain development, damaged lungs, and more. You can be sure I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to improve this legislation in order to put forward well-balanced legislation that can comprehensively address the youth tobacco epidemic

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to announce my constituent, Dr. Gustavo Balderas, superintendent of Eugene School District 4J, was named Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators. Dr. Balderas now makes three Oregon superintendents that have won the prestigious award, two of which hail from Oregon's Fourth Congressional District. Education has long been a passion for Dr. Balderas. He is the proud son of migrant parents from Piedras Negras, Cohauila Mexico--who, like many migrants, sought a better life for their family in the United States. His parents saw getting an education as a path forward for their son and pushed him to follow this track. Dr. Balderas is an Oregonian through and through--beginning his education in the Nyssa School District and Treasure Valley Community College in Eastern Oregon, earning a bachelor's degree from Western Oregon University and then a master's degree from Portland State University, and, finally, receiving his doctorate from the University of Oregon. He has spent nearly all his 30-year career in Oregon. I am not surprised the American Association of School Administrators bestowed their distinguished award to Dr. Balderas. He is well-known and well-respected throughout the state for his leadership in education equity. Dr. Balderas is committed to mentoring and providing counsel and direction to the future leaders of our state's school districts. He has made great strides in increasing the diversity of Eugene 4J's educator workforce. Under his leadership, 30 percent of all district administrators, including 39 percent of school principals, are people of color, more accurately reflecting the district's 31 percent enrollment among students of color. He has also partnered with community organizations to combat youth and family homelessness in our district. In accepting his award, Dr. Balderas said: ``This is a `we' award, not a `me' award''--accepting the award on behalf of his community rather than himself. I am thrilled that Eugene 4J has such a dedicated, yet modest, leader who recognizes the important work educators contribute towards making our public schools exceptional. In fact, it was the educators in his life that inspired him to follow this path. They made him a better student and the role model he is today. Dr. Balderas' talents were cultivated in Oregon's public schools, and today our community is reaping the rewards from his capacity, capability, and commitment. I am honored to have an educator of Dr. Balderas' caliber serve our community, and I thank him for the outstanding work he has done and will continue to do on behalf of the students of Eugene 4J and all of public education.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, in a Christmas Eve bill with no legislative consideration, an otherwise noncontroversial bill, a provision was stuck in to say that the Postal Service should prefund 75 years of health benefits for retirees. Now, think about that. That means people who have not yet been born, who have not yet gone to work for the Postal Service for a career and then might retire, we are paying for their healthcare now. Name one other entity in the United States of America, corporate or government, that does anything like this. It is nuts. And it is a piggybank. The money isn't being put into a trust fund to pay for their health insurance. It is going into the maw of the Treasury. Who knows where it goes. It maybe makes the debt look a little smaller. That was why President Bush pushed for it. But it is accounting for the majority of the losses at the Postal Service. So, yes, this will help relieve pressure on the Postal Service and on rates. And I think there are a lot of Americans who would like not to see the postal rates keep going up. Now, there are 300 bipartisan cosponsors. There aren't too many things around here these days like that because I think many people realize this doesn't make much sense. And the Postal Service is a critical service. It is not a government- run business to make a profit. It is the U.S. Postal Service. Star routes don't make money. If you represent a rural area, you can't make money out there. FedEx and UPS won't go out there. They get the Postal Service to take the stuff out there. If we dismantle the Postal Service, then everybody in rural America is out of luck. And there are a whole heck of a lot of other people who are dependent upon this: newspapers, rural newspapers, small businesses. Many years ago, when I first started working on this, I posted something on the website: Tell me if you need the Postal Service. People from all the small towns all around my very large district said: I sell on eBay. That is how I make a living out here in Powers, Oregon, or in other little places around my district. I couldn't afford UPS or FedEx. I get the one package price. So this is critical. And, every day, hundreds of thousands of our veterans get their drugs delivered by the United States Postal Service, many of them in rural areas, hard to serve, and, sure as heck, hard for them to get to the VA hospital or get into town. So we need to stop burdening the Postal Service with something that makes no sense. Are there other things that need to be reformed? Yes. But once we take this $5 billion a year burden off them--they have already put $50 billion into a theoretical account to pay for healthcare for future postal employees who haven't been born yet, who might work there, might retire some day, and might get health benefits. That is more than enough. And, by the way, this doesn't score in any way. So that is why we have 300 bipartisan sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues at long last to undo this stupidity.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last night in this Chamber, we heard a bloviating, self-congratulatory speech full of exaggerations, half- truths, and outright falsehoods. The President pretended to have addressed, or was going to address, concerns of the American people. He said he is taking care of prescription drugs. Yeah. Really. They haven't done a damn thing. We sent a bill to the Senate and it is sitting there. Second, he said, oh, we are going to protect preexisting conditions. Funny thing, his Attorney General is in court arguing that those preexisting conditions should no longer be protected. But, hey, what the heck. And then he did devote one sentence--one sentence--to infrastructure. What happened to the $2 trillion plan he campaigned on and carries on about all the time? Well, so far, he has only proposed cuts. But one issue of vital concern to the American people that is the focus this week--this is National Gun Violence Survivors Week--did not receive a single mention by the President, despite the fact that several commonsense bipartisan reforms and programs have passed this House and have received no action in the Senate in a year. H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Comprehensive Background Checks Act, passed on February 27. No action in the Senate. The Enhanced Background Checks Act passed February 28--bipartisan. Again, no action in the Senate. Every year, guns are sold to people who aren't supposed to have them--including at that horrible church shooting a couple of years ago--because of a mandate that, if there is confusion over a background check, they have to get the gun within 3 days. Over the last 10 years, 35,000 guns, because of that provision, were sold to people who were not qualified under Federal law to have the guns. And guess what. Then the Feds contact the FBI who screwed up the background check, contacts the local law enforcement and says, ``Hey, go get the gun from that felon,'' endangering our local law enforcement. This would plug that loophole. The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization passed April 4. No action in the Senate. And, for the first time in 20 years, we are going to do some research on gun violence. There are other bills we should be doing. In my State, we have adopted red flag laws. And over here, they say, well, we can't have red flag laws for abusers because of their constitutional rights. Well, we have set it up in a way that we have had 160 petitions for red flag restrictions. Most of them--actually, the majority--were for people at risk of suicide; and then a minority were for abusive relationships, and 32 of those were denied by a judge. Due process was followed, but lives were saved. But, no, we can't take that. Bump stocks, we banned fully automatic weapons decades ago. Bump stocks, essentially, turn a semiautomatic into a very inaccurate, nearly full automatic in terms of ready to fire. But if you are shooting at a stadium full of people, it doesn't matter how inaccurate it is; you are going to hit a lot of people. We can't even bring up legislation--or, well, the Republicans won't support legislation to ban bump stocks, hate crimes legislation, the list goes on. Just one other quick issue. You can go online to armslist.com, and if you are not eligible to buy a gun, you can get one. It is very evident that, in study after study done, that many of the people selling guns on armslist.com are felons and not allowed to own firearms, and they will sell to other felons. It will say: No background check necessary. Will cross State lines--all sorts of things like that. All those things need to be banned. Those are commonsense gun violence reforms. And, in this week, just, really, this week, National Gun Violence Survivors Week, let's do something to end the bloodshed.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on January 29, I voted against S. 3201, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. Fentanyl, a deadly synthetic drug 50 times more powerful than heroin, is wreaking havoc on Americans across the country. In 2017, there were over 47,000 opioid overdose deaths, and 28,000 of those deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. In Oregon, fentanyl use and deaths associated with fentanyl use continue to climb: In 2013, there were 14 related fentanyl deaths in Oregon; In 2018, there were more than 75. We must to do more to combat this epidemic. We should start with aggressively cracking down on major manufacturers. According to the Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, most non- pharmaceutical fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that are available in Oregon are illicitly manufactured--primarily in China, as well as in Mexico--and then imported into the United States. That's why I am a cosponsor of the Fentanyl Sanctions Act. This legislation would require the imposition of sanctions on drug manufacturers in China who knowingly provide synthetic opioids to traffickers, transnational criminal organizations (such as cartels in Mexico who are known to mix fentanyl with other drugs before trafficking them into the U.S.), and financial institutions that assist such entities. It would also authorize new funding for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat the foreign trafficking of synthetic opioids and urge the president to significantly ramp up diplomatic efforts with China and Mexico to establish multilateral sanctions against foreign synthetic opioid traffickers. I am pleased that this important legislation was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that was signed into law last year. However, I have strong concerns that S. 3201 will expose more individuals to prosecutions and aggressive federal mandatory minimums for even trace amounts of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, undermine our progress on bipartisan sentencing reform efforts like the First Step Act, and fail to focus our efforts on combatting major illicit fentanyl manufacturers and traffickers. We must not arrest our way out of this crisis. This epidemic demands thoughtful legislation from Congress, not a knee-jerk response that is likely to exacerbate troubling trends in federal drug prosecutions and incarceration levels. Given that S. 3201 will extend the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) emergency scheduling of fentanyl-related substances through May 6, 2021, I hope the committees of jurisdiction use that time to develop a balanced, comprehensive approach that protects public health and safety while addressing fentanyl overdoses and reducing the harm of federal mandatory minimums and overincarceration.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Well, hating all things Obama, Trump impulsively tore up the nuclear deal with Iran, even though all of his intelligence agencies, all of the other signatories, the inspectors, agreed they were in compliance. He said he would get a better deal as a master negotiator, through a unilateral campaign of maximum pressure, and bring stability to the region. Instead, he has triggered steadily escalating tensions, culminating in the January 3 assassination of Soleimani, bringing the U.S. to the brink of war with Iran. The Bush invasion of Iraq under phony intelligence provided by Vice President Cheney was the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States of America, and we are still seeing the repercussions, but a war with Iran would be worse. Trump says he doesn't need to consult with Congress for a war in Iran. We hear from the other side that Congress asserting its constitutional authority regarding declaration of war is dangerous. I tell you what is dangerous: an impulsive Commander in Chief embroiling the United States in yet another endless war in the Middle East.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, undeniably the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States of America was the invasion of Iraq based on phonied-up intelligence that was trumpeted by Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and other characters in the Bush administration. But just this last week, President Trump took us to the verge of an even worse foreign policy mistake in the Middle East. He recklessly and impatiently took us to the brink of war that would have been even worse. Now, yesterday, I went to the so-called intelligence briefing. They offered no intelligence regarding immediate imminent threats to the United States, our troops, or allies in the region. They did certainly make a case that Soleimani was a rotten guy and he was responsible for many, many deaths of Americans and others in the region, but that is all recited past history that didn't talk about any immediate threats or any intelligence that would lead to it. They further went on to say that the legal justification was the Authorization for Use of Military Force in the invasion of Iraq, which, of course, was based on phony intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction he didn't have. So that is even more extraordinary if you think about that. Last week, also, the President tweeted what he said was his compliance with war powers. He then went on to tweet a threat of all- out war against Iran, and then he went further to tweet that he would order that war crimes be committed during an all-out war against Iran. That was walked back a little bit by the Secretary of Defense who said they would follow the law. And then Trump later said: I like laws. I will follow the laws. So he walked back from saying he was going to destroy cultural threats a little bit. Today, on the floor of the House, we will take up a rebuke of the President for those actions. Hopefully, we will go further and we will repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2002 based on fake intelligence. We will further, hopefully, take up legislation that was adopted as an amendment to the defense authorization last summer, with bipartisan support, to say that the President couldn't initiate hostilities against Iran without first coming to Congress. Congress has the authority, and only Congress has the authority, to declare war. Once we are at war, the President, as Commander in Chief, can utilize the Armed Forces as he sees fit. But the President does not have the authority. This is extraconstitutional when it isn't an attack or an imminent attack on the United States, its troops, or its citizens. So we need to do those things. Further, we need to fix the War Powers Act. That was adopted after the illegal actions of another President, Richard Nixon, the bombing of Cambodia. There were two versions. One followed the Constitution, and said, no, no, any offensive actions into hostilities you first have to come to Congress. The second version said, well, you can initiate them, but you have to report within 48 hours, and if Congress doesn't authorize it within 60 days, you have to withdraw. That was defective and weak and doesn't reflect at all the congressional duties of this body. Now, I know a lot of Members love to dodge the issues of war and peace--it is the toughest vote you can make--and that is essentially what they did at the time, a wink and a nod: Well, we will let the President do these things. Hey, if it works out, we will take credit; if it doesn't work out, oh, well, then we can castigate him later. So I have introduced, yet again, a bill that comprehensively reforms the War Powers Act to reflect the constitutional authorities and duties of the United States Congress. It would say that the President cannot initiate hostilities without first coming to Congress. It would define what consultation means. It doesn't mean a tweet to the Congress. It doesn't mean sending up a letter. It means a meaningful consultation. It establishes an executive legislative consultative group. It also includes, most importantly, a sunset clause for any authorization by Congress. I mean, a thousand years from now, the United States, I guess, if we don't repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, can attack whatever Iraq is a thousand years from now. That is absolutely absurd. Finally, it does give Congress the authority and standing to go to the courts should the President violate the Constitution and the War Powers Act in the future--any President. I have had problems with both Democratic and Republican Presidents over this issue over the years: Clinton, Bosnia; Bush, obviously in a number of cases; and then Obama in Libya and other things that they did, also based on the fake intelligence in the 2002 authorization. So let's first vote today. That is just a starting point in reasserting our constitutional duties.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, President Bush's invasion of Iraq was the first foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States based on fake intelligence, and President Trump took us to the brink of war with Iran with an impulsive act at the end of last week that would be even more disastrous than the war with Iraq, which is still reverberating throughout the region. Some on that side say: Oh, you are not with the troops; you are apologizing. No, we are not. We are reasserting the constitutional duty that we are sworn to in this House of Representatives. Congress and only Congress can declare war. Once we have declared war, then the President of the United States as Commander in Chief can conduct it, as much as this gentleman could. This is just a step. We need to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq based on fake intelligence because that was his lawyer's rationalization of why they could do this in Iraq, a sovereign nation, without their permission. We also have to reform the War Powers Act because the War Powers Act itself does not reflect our constitutional authority. Finally, we have to pass an amendment to prohibit a hostile action against Iran without authority from Congress.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago, I strongly opposed and helped lead the opposition against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While our efforts narrowly failed in the House, I was proud to vote against it. Then-President Clinton said that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would create thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs and would result in trade surpluses between $9-$12 billion. The reality, however, couldn't be further from the truth, and NAFTA has been an absolute disaster. After railing against NAFTA and promising to deliver a dramatically improved deal or withdraw from the agreement altogether, President Trump and his administration delivered the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). By all accounts, the USMCA was nothing more than a continuation of NAFTA's same failed policies. After months of extensive negotiations between House Democrats and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), important improvements have been made to the USMCA on a number of issues, including improvements I have long fought for and helped secure. After extensive work with USTR, I am proud to have secured provisions in the USMCA that will better enable the U.S. to safeguard our roads. The deal includes language that allows the United States to restrict domestic long-haul services by Mexican trucks in the event of material harm to U.S. trucking suppliers, operators, and drivers. I am pleased that this restriction provides teeth to protect the U.S. trucking industry from unfair trade practices by Mexican motor carriers, and provides for consideration of impacts on driver wages and working conditions, to avoid a race to the bottom in trucking. I am also pleased that damaging provisions that would have kept prescription drug costs high have been removed. House Democrats were able to successfully negotiate the removal of provisions that would have kept cheaper, generic drugs off the market longer. Working Americans have been waiting for more than two decades for the opportunity to fix NAFTA's failed policies. Throughout my career I have fought for a truly transformative replacement that supports American workers while safeguarding the environment and protecting consumers. While it is an improvement from NAFTA, I do not believe that the USMCA is that transformative deal, and, as a result, I will be voting against it today. The fact of the matter is that there is a deeply entrenched system of wage and rights suppression in Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of this system, and these jobs aren't coming back to our country. Without upending this entrenched system altogether, we will not be able to raise wages and standards for Mexican workers, which means we will continue to struggle to prevent the hemorrhaging of American jobs that are being outsourced to low wage jobs in Mexico. I do not believe Mexico has devoted the funding or the staffing necessary for these changes, nor do I believe this agreement goes far enough in ensuring that workers and the U.S. have the remedies needed to prevent abuses from continuing to occur moving forward. Democratic and Republican administrations have shirked their responsibilities to fight for higher labor standards and fair trade policies, and I do not believe this agreement does enough to prevent those kind of abuses moving forward. Further, the Republican tax bill enacted in 2017 actually promotes outsourcing by allowing multinational corporations to cut their tax rate in half if they shut a factory in the U.S. and move it to Mexico. I will reintroduce legislation next year to eliminate this incentive. Beyond this, the USMCA is at its core a deal that will continue to promote pro-polluter, climate-denying policies. There are no substantive provisions to seriously curb air and water pollution, the deal completely ignores climate change, and its environmental enforcement mechanism is not nearly strong enough. We need to do much more to take bold steps to address climate change and to curb corporate polluting. I am also disappointed that the administration abandoned its original position to eliminate chapter 19. I have long called for the elimination of this unconstitutional chapter which allows foreign tribunals to overrule U.S. trade protections against heavily subsidized foreign imports, and I am disappointed that the administration acquiesced to Canada. While I don't believe this agreement sets forward a bold vision for a 21st century trade agreement, the reality is that this agreement will become law, and that means the real work of monitoring and enforcing the new provisions will begin. I will push for robust oversight and enforcement of the labor and environmental standards and work to ensure that any and all flaws are appropriately addressed when the USMCA's sunset provisions kick-in six years from now. I have spent my entire career fighting on behalf of the American worker, including voting against every so-called free trade deal proposed to Congress that undermines our workforce and enables the destruction of our environment. I will continue to fight for truly transformative deals that create a new standard for how trade agreements should support the U.S. and its people. Mr. Speaker, despite President Trump's promises to fix NAFTA and make a perfect trade agreement that will bring jobs back to the United States, the NAFTA 2.0 agreement signed last year prioritized corporations over American workers. Democratic lawmakers negotiated vigorously to improve the shoddy 2018 agreement, and they should be applauded for their work on the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA marks a significant improvement over the NAFTA 2.0 agreement on issues related to labor standards. The USMCA establishes labor specific enforcement mechanisms, removes NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) regime, and eliminates huge giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry. While significant strides were made, the agreement ultimately falls short of the critical labor and environmental needs that face our country today. Although I regretfully had to miss today's vote due to a family emergency, I would have voted no on the USMCA. The USMCA does take long-overdue steps to improve conditions for Mexican workers and remove incentives for companies to move American jobs to Mexico. To be clear, this agreement will do nothing to bring back hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to the U.S., and the Republican's tax bill signed into law last year still contains major incentives for corporations to outsource and offshore jobs. Mexico's promise to provide new labor protections, and the new rules included in this agreement, will help many workers in Mexico. However, the USMCA's enforcement mechanisms simply will not do enough to ensure these new rules are followed and could make it impossible for the U.S. to hold Mexico responsible if these promised reforms do not take effect. Unfortunately, USMCA fails to address our climate crisis and adequately protect our environment. The agreement does not include enforcement of the Paris Climate Agreement or even the phrase ``climate change.'' It leaves intact NAFTA's incentives for corporations to dodge clean energy policies in the U.S. and leaves enforcement to a NAFTA- style interagency committee with little authority beyond writing reports. The agreement would not address documented pollution dumping and sets no limits on air, water, or land pollution. The deregulatory standards would also make it even harder for the U.S. to set new environmental regulations in the future. It was impossible for me to support this agreement without significantly more robust and binding environmental standards. I respect and appreciate the hard work and dedication of my Democratic colleagues in transforming President Trump's terrible NAFTA 2.0 agreement into a more robust and fair USMCA. However, because of the weak environmental standards and the lack of robust enforcement of labor rights, I cannot support it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, this week the House passed two bills that will fund the federal government through Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. The first package, which I voted in support of, includes a number of provisions which I strongly support. First, I am proud to have worked in conjunction with Senators Merkley and Wyden as well as Rep. Schrader to ensure that this package forgives a multi-million-dollar interest burden owed by Oregon's Pacific groundfish fisheries. This burden was created solely by bureaucratic incompetence, and the inclusion ofthis provision is a huge win for Oregonians. The bill also increases funding for programs that hundreds of Oregonians depend upon, such as YouthBuild, JobCorps, and Senior Corps. I led the charge to secure an additional $13 million above FY 2019 levels for the Senior Corps program, ensuring volunteers earn an increased stipend which will allow them to take hundreds of more dollars home a year. It also increases funding for Pell Grants--easing the way for more people to afford an education. It also included record investments for early childhood education programs, more funding for rural broadband, and a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program through 2020. In addition, it includes the highest funding level for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 15 years. The bill makes robust investments to support our nation's veterans, including funding for suicide prevention, homeless assistance programs, rural health initiatives, opioid abuse prevention, and funding for the VA's electronic health record initiative to ensure our veterans get the care they have earned and deserve. The package also includes $25 million for gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)--the first time in more than 20 years. The bill secures record-level funding for life-saving healthcare research at the NIH and CDC, and it extends funding for vital community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and Teaching Health Centers. Unfortunately, I am deeply disappointed that this bill included a provision that would extend market exclusivity rights to Big Pharma for certain medicines, allowing these companies to price-gouge consumers for longer periods of time without competition from more affordable, generic drugs. The second appropriations bill also includes a number of provisions that I strongly support, including a 3.1 percent pay raise for both our men and women in uniform and federal civilian employees, as well as robust funding for the STOP School Violence Act, legislation that would give students and teachers the tools they need to help prevent school shootings. It includes increased investment in election security, the National Guard Youth Challenge, the National Science Foundation, and the Census Bureau, so that it can effectively and accurately carry out the 2020 Decennial Census. I also led the fight to include funding for esophageal cancer research, which I am pleased to report was incorporated into the bill as part of $110 million for the Department of Defense's Peer-Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP). I strongly support the robust funding included for numerous other defense health and cancer research programs as well. Unfortunately, despite including provisions I strongly support, I voted against this second bill because it also contains several objectionable provisions. For example, this bill once again increases funding for an already- bloated Pentagon budget, including a massive increase to the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account--a fiscally irresponsible slush fund that is not counted in the budget, has no congressional oversight, and gives a blank check to fund endless wars that Congress hasn't authorized. For years, Congress has continued to increase the Pentagon's budget despite overwhelming evidence of its waste and abuse of taxpayer money. I believe this legislation could have made responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops, preventing a pay increase, or undermining our national security. I am also extremely disappointed that this final bill stripped out a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force and a provision to block funding for the U.S.'s involvement in the Saudi-led coalition's involvement in Yemen's civil war--both of which were included in the House-passed defense appropriations bill earlier this year. This is yet another example of Congress abdicating its constitutional authority to finally put a stop to the endless wars that have cost countless lives and taxpayer money. This legislation fails to effectively check the Department of Homeland Security's border policies and spending. The bill includes funding for President Trump's wasteful and ineffective border wall, lacks appropriate restrictions to prevent the Trump administration from raiding funds from other agencies to spend on immigration detention and the wall, and does virtually nothing to provide necessary oversight against enforcement-only immigration policies. The Trump administration's policies have resulted in cruel family separations, record levels of detained immigrants, especially children, in cruel conditions, and the death of at least two dozen immigrants while in federal custody. Instead of enacting strong, enforceable oversight mechanisms, this bill largely maintains the status quo. That is unacceptable. Congress needs to be a check against the executive branch's authority. For these reasons, I opposed this second appropriations package. I will continue to fight against Republican efforts to hand billions of dollars in taxpayer money to a bloated and wasteful Pentagon and work to rein in the Trump administration's cruel enforcement-only immigration agenda.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, it is clear-cut. The President of the United States has violated his oath of office and betrayed the Constitution and the American people. He admitted to soliciting assistance from a foreign leader to interfere in the U.S. election and aid his political reelection campaign. That is a violation of law, a violation of the Constitution, a betrayal of the American people, and an impeachable offense. Overwhelming evidence also demonstrates the President withheld congressionally approved taxpayer dollars to blackmail the young, new President of Ukraine under attack from Russia. The gentleman from Georgia says Ukraine didn't feel any pressure. They are being invaded by Russia, Vladimir Putin, you know, Trump's friend. He withheld that aid until the whistleblower report came out, then the aid was released. It wasn't released for any good purpose. Congress voted for that aid; the President signed the bill. That is another impeachable offense. The Committee on the Judiciary has put together an extensive document which shows that there is evidence of numerous other Federal crimes, including bribery and wire fraud. Madam Speaker, the President's actions threaten the continuation of our representative democracy. I am proudly voting for impeachment today.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote in support of H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. Because of pharmaceutical companies' price gouging, Americans pay more out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than individuals in any other country. Americans need lower drug prices now, and Congress has the ability to enact important reforms to deliver immediate relief. I believe H.R. 3 takes some important first steps towards delivering that relief and towards improving the health and financial security of American seniors and families. In particular, I am strongly supportive of provisions that will lower out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Medicare Part D beneficiaries. The legislation also limits price increases under Medicare Part Band D by creating an inflation rebate. Specifically, if a drug company raises the price of a drug in Part B or D above the 2016 rate of inflation, the company must lower the price or be required to pay the entire price above inflation in the form of a rebate back to the Treasury. After strong pushback from myself and other progressive members, I am pleased that House leadership restored language designed to prevent pharmaceutical price-gouging for upwards of 150 million Americans with private health care plans and increased the minimum number of drugs that must be negotiated per year from 25 to 50. While I believe these provisions will ultimately deliver relief to millions of Americans, I believe Congress can and must do more to combat rising drug prices and price-gouging pharmaceutical companies. Currently, pharmaceutical companies charge outrageous prices because there is no adequate law to prevent drug companies from reaping massive profits with drugs developed on the taxpayer's dime. To combat this ridiculous practice, I introduced H.R. 4640, the Affordable Drug Pricing for Taxpayer-Funded Prescription Drugs Act, which would end price gouging on prescription drugs developed with taxpayer-funded research by requiring federal agencies and federally- funded non-profits to secure affordable pricing agreements from drug manufacturers before granting them exclusive rights to develop drugs or other health care products. Americans should not pay to develop a drug only to see it put on the shelves in the U.S. at a much higher price than other nations. I partnered with Rep. Doggett to offer an amendment to H.R. 3 that is similar to my legislation. While the amendment was not made in order, I will continue to push House leadership for full consideration of H.R. 4640. Beyond this, I am a strong supporter of the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make sure that Americans don't pay more for prescription drugs than the median price of: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. If pharmaceutical manufacturers refuse to negotiate, HHS would be required to approve cheaper generic versions of those drugs, regardless of any prior patents or market exclusivities. If Congress were to enact this legislation, prices of most brand name drugs would be significantly reduced. Furthermore, uninsured patients should have access to negotiated prices under H.R. 3. That's why I supported an amendment that would have guaranteed that any negotiated price savings could have been accessed by the most vulnerable in our country, those who lack health insurance. Unfortunately, this amendment was not included in the final bill, meaning uninsured patients will continue to face the highest price at the pharmacy counter--pharmaceutical companies' list price. I am also disappointed that an amendment I supported to allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare Part D was not made in order. In 2003, the House Republican majority passed Medicare Part D. While I have consistently been a leader in the fight to lower drug prices for seniors, I opposed this legislation because it included a provision that prevents the federal government from negotiating better prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients. This means that drug companies are free to charge Medicare recipients higher prices, more than anyone else in the world. This is unacceptable. The amendment offered to H.R. 3 would have authorized the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare Part D, and if drug companies refuse to negotiate, this legislation would enable the federal government to issue a competitive license to another company to produce the medication as a generic. The bottom line is that seniors shouldn't have to ration their pills or limit their dosage because they can't afford to pay for prescriptions each month.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today I will vote against the Conference Report to Accompany S. 1790, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. This legislation includes a number of provisions that I strongly support, including giving servicemen and women a well-deserved raise of 3.1 percent--the largest pay raise for our troops since the last Democratic House majority in 2010. Those who serve in uniform have made extraordinary sacrifices for our country and have earned and deserve a pay raise. I am also strongly supportive of the inclusion of twelve weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. However, the omission of, at least, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and United States Postal Service (USPS) employees from this coverage is an inexcusable oversight, and I look forward to working with House and Senate leaders to enact a legislative correction. Moreover, I am pleased that this Conference Report ends the unfair Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)/Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset--also known as the ``widow's tax''--which currently reduces spouse survivor benefits by an average of $1,250 per month. The families of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces make significant sacrifices and deserve the full benefits they have earned from their spouses' service. Unfortunately, this final package is a little more than a continuation of the status quo, and it falls well short of the NDAA bill the House passed earlier this year. The final legislation strips out a number of policy priorities that were included in the House- passed NDAA, which I strongly supported, and includes yet another massive spending increase to an already bloated Pentagon budget. I believe this legislation could have made responsible cuts to our defense budget without jeopardizing the safety of our troops, preventing a pay increase, or undermining our national security. For years, Congress has continued to increase the Pentagon's budget despite overwhelming evidence of its waste and abuse of taxpayer money. This year's legislation--with its outrageous topline defense budget of $738 billion--is yet another example of Congress's habit of increasing the defense budget every year. While this administration has cut SNAP benefits, Medicaid, reproductive health services, and more, Congress has thus far boosted the Pentagon's budget by more than $130 billion during President Trump's first term. I have long supported a financial audit of the Pentagon, and for the second year in a row, the Pentagon has spectacularly failed its comprehensive audit. While I am pleased the Pentagon is finally undergoing comprehensive audits in order to identify waste, it is ridiculous to provide the Department of Defense (DoD) another massive spending increase when they cannot even account for how it spends taxpayer money. In particular, I have always opposed the DoD's Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) account, a fiscally irresponsible fund that is not counted in the budget, recklessly adds to our mounting debt, and has no congressional oversight. This Conference Report allocates $71.5 billion for OCO, a Pentagon slush fund that gives a blank check to fund endless wars that Congress hasn't authorized. The bottom line is that fiscal responsibility and accountability at the Pentagon would allow for funds to be better spent supporting the needs of our troops, meeting our obligations to veterans, and ensuring our legitimate defense needs are prioritized. Beyond bloated Pentagon spending, I am extremely disappointed that the Conference Report strips out provisions that would have prevented the president from using unauthorized force against Iran, prohibited U.S. support for and participation in the Saudi-led coalition's military operations in Yemen, and repealed the long-outdated 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq. These provisions passed with bipartisan support in the House, and failure to include them is yet another abdication of Congress's constitutional war powers. I have always advocated for reaffirming Congress's constitutional authority to declare war and limiting the president's authority to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress and will continue to do so. While I am pleased that this legislation blocks any backfill for DoD funds raided by President Trump for his unnecessary, ineffective border wall, it fails to include House-passed language that prevented the president from diverting additional funding under his so-called national emergency declaration. Under this emergency declaration, President Trump has taken more than $3.6 billion from the DoD's high- priority military construction projects, $2.5 billion from the DoD's drug interdiction program, and has transferred funds from other critical, lifesaving agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and more. As Chairman of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I twice led the debate on the House floor to terminate this emergency declaration. Despite the fact that Congress has voted multiple times, with strong bipartisan support, to terminate this declaration, President Trump has repeatedly vetoed. I will continue to fight to bring an end to this national emergency declaration. Additionally, the House unanimously adopted an amendment to the NDAA that would have required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate PFAS as a hazardous substance under our nation's Superfund law, as well as restrict future discharges from manufacturers into drinking water under the Clean Water Act. PFAS are dangerous carcinogens that are virtually ubiquitous in American's drinking water, and Congress must restrict their use and clean up our water sources that are contaminated. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans refused time and time again to negotiate any compromise on these important provisions, and the language was removed from the Conference Report. Fortunately, Majority Leader Hoyer has already stated that he will bring the PFAS Action Act to the House floor in January, and I look forward to voting for that legislation. Lastly, this Conference Report strips out a House-passed prohibition on sending new detainees to Guantanamo Bay, doing almost nothing to hasten the closing of this detention facility. This facility, which costs almost $450 million each year to house 40 prisoners, has been a black eye for the United States, eroding relationships with our allies, bolstering terrorist recruitment tools, undermining U.S. missions abroad, and putting U.S. citizens and our troops at risk of retaliation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in support of H. Res. 326, a non-binding resolution reiterating the U.S. House of Representatives' support for long-standing U.S. policy to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution. I have consistently supported a two-state solution throughout my time in Congress. While there is no perfect solution to this complex and heated conflict, I believe a negotiated two-state solution between Israeli and Palestinian leaders is a viable framework to achieve security, peace, and address the legitimate needs of both peoples. Furthermore, I am pleased that H. Res. 326 condemns actions by the Trump administration and the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which have severely undermined the possibility of a two-state solution. For example, H. Res. 326 puts the House of Representatives on the record as opposing unilateral annexation of territory. This is an important rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's disturbing announcement that he plans to annex large swathes of the occupied Palestinian territories, a move that I strongly oppose. Additionally, I am opposed to President Trump's decision to discontinue bilateral assistance to the Palestinians and U.S. contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). That's why I am pleased H. Res. 326 states that ``it is in the United States' interest to continue promoting the security, stability, and humanitarian well-being of Palestinians and their neighbors by resuming the provision of foreign assistance pursuant to United States law.'' I am also pleased this resolution opposes the Trump administration's continued greenlighting of Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. This declaration is especially timely given the Trump administration's recent outrageous reversal of the decades-long U.S. position that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are against international law. I also joined my colleagues in signing a letter condemning President Trump's reversal. However, while I support this resolution, I believe it should have gone further to address additional actions by the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government which have severely undermined a two-state solution. For example, H. Res. 326 fails to condemn the Trump administration's decision to recognize the city of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and it fails to denounce the Netanyahu government's continued human rights abuses, including demolition of Palestinian homes and villages, military detention of Palestinian children, and more. Protecting human rights, regardless of any ongoing tension between Israelis and Palestinians, should be a fundamental American value. Additionally, the original text of H. Res. 326--which I cosponsored-- included a call for an ``end to the occupation'' of Palestinian territory. Unfortunately, this language was removed from the final version brought to the floor. As an ally of Israel, the United States invests more than $3 billion in aid to Israel annually, and H. Res. 326 reiterates U.S. support for this aid. Accordingly, I believe it is only appropriate that lawmakers voice their legitimate concerns with Israeli policies in a constructive way, as I have done throughout my time in Congress and will continue to do. Unfortunately, recent rhetoric over U.S.-Israeli relations and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has devolved into a divisive--and even partisan--war of words. It is only through thoughtful, respectful, nuanced debate that Congress can productively contribute towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and addressing the legitimate needs of both peoples. The bottom line is it is critical that the U.S. pursue policies that will move Israelis and Palestinians towards a negotiated, two-state solution, and I will continue to push the Trump administration and Congress to do so.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself and Mr. Graves of Missouri, today I would like to recognize the outstanding career, significant accomplishments, and invaluable contributions of Carolyn Edwards, a dedicated civil servant who in January will retire after a distinguished 46-year career with the U.S. Department of Transportation--44 of these with the Federal Highway Administration. Among her many exemplary accomplishments, Ms. Edwards has been involved in every Federal surface transportation bill since TEA-21 in 1998. This has included support--through the technical assistance process--for Congressional Committees, countless Members of Congress, and their staff on legislative and highway policy issues. This is the fourth time that a Congressional Committee Chair (or Ranking Member) has publicly thanked Ms. Edwards, by name, for her contributions. Prior instances include-- On July 29, 2005, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Senator Jim Inhofe) thanked her on the Senate floor during floor consideration of the conference report for SAFETEA-LU; On June 29, 2012, in the Congressional Record the Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (the Honorable John Mica) thanked Ms. Edwards, among others, for her work on MAP-21; and On December 3, 2015, I thanked Ms. Edwards on the House floor for her work on the FAST Act. Ms. Edwards joined the Federal Highway Administration in 1973 as an economist within the Agency's Office of Highway Planning. There, she helped to establish FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System--a system that 40 years later continues to provide national-level data on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the nation's highways. Over the ensuing four-and-a-half decades, Ms. Edwards has gone on to serve in a range of high-level analytical positions at FHWA, including stints in FHWA's Office of Highway Policy Information and in FHWA's Office of Legislative Affairs and Policy Communications. As one example, during the mid-1990s, Ms. Edwards served in FHWA's Office of Highway Information Management. While there, she identified-- then helped to resolve--a $1.6 billion error in the Treasury Department's calculation of Highway Trust Fund revenues, which impacted the State-by-State distribution of Federal highway funding. Later, she also worked in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, with a portfolio that covered Federal-aid highway programs and the Highway Trust Fund. Ms. Edwards is ending her career as a member--and former leader--of FHWA's legislative analysis team. In this capacity, she serves as an unparalleled national expert on a wide range of highway-related topics, including Federal highway legislation, the Highway Trust Fund, and the operations of the Federal-aid highway program. For years, she has been a go-to reference on these topics for both agency and departmental leaders. Furthermore, as testament to the quality of her work, over the course of her career, Ms. Edwards has been recognized with multiple FHWA Superior Achievement Awards, a Secretary's Team Award, and two Secretarial Awards for Partnering for Excellence. In closing, on behalf of myself, the Committee, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and our staff, I would like to thank Ms. Edwards for her steadfast public service, her support for the Congress, and her immeasurable contributions to the Federal-aid highway program.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, yesterday I voted against H.R. 3055, a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the government through December 20, 2019. Let me be clear: I strongly support the majority of the funding extensions and protections in this CR. This includes the well-deserved 3.1 percent pay raise to our men and women in uniform, of which I also voted in favor earlier this year in separate legislation. The compensation for our men and women in uniform should never be compromised by Congress's inability to pass annual funding legislation. I am also pleased that this CR includes a provision that would protect federal highway funding and generate new jobs. Using my position as Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I worked to ensure that the CR included a provision that would repeal Section 1438 of the FAST Act of 2015. Section 1438, which was included at the insistence of Republican leaders in 2015, will rescind $7.6 billion of federal highway funding in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 if it is not repealed. I strongly support repeal of Section 1438, which is long overdue. Transportation agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia are counting on Congress to prevent this massive, multi-billion dollar cut from going into effect. Although I unfortunately had to vote against the CR for unrelated reasons, I applaud my colleagues for taking this issue seriously and including the rescission repeal in this must-pass bill. I'm pleased we are taking a positive step to finally give states the certainty they need to carry out long-term projects that create jobs and help their communities. Furthermore, I strongly support the extensions in the CR to protect funding for Community Health Centers, which provide a vital lifeline for health care services to thousands of Oregonians and millions of Americans across the country. I am also pleased that this legislation extends funding for the National Health Service Corps and the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, two health care workforce programs that provide resources to support the training of health providers in rural and underserved areas. In addition, I am pleased that this legislation protects funding for important health care programs including Medicare and Medicaid programs, disproportionate share hospitals, the Community Mental Health Services Demonstration Program, the Special Diabetes Program, and funds to respond to the Ebola outbreak in Africa. I also strongly support the funding extensions provided to ensure the Census Bureau has the funding it needs to continue carrying out the 2020 Decennial Census. Moreover, I support the CR's funding extension for the critical Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which allows the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to match state child care expenditures and make scheduled contingency fund payments. The legislation also ensures that the current caseload in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which serves low-income seniors, is maintained. However, I opposed the CR because it includes absurd provisions to extend mass surveillance programs under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This includes Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which has allowed for mass surveillance of Americans' call records, as well as roving wire tap provisions and so-called ``lone wolf'' authority. I am strongly opposed to these data collection and mass surveillance programs, which I believe are unconstitutional. I voted against the original PATRIOT Act in 2001, and I have continued to oppose reauthorization of this and related mass surveillance programs unless and until significant reforms are made to protect the constitutional privacy rights of U.S. citizens. For years, I have urged congressional leadership under both parties to take up meaningful reform of these government spying programs and allow for sincere, robust debate on how to restore Americans' constitutional rights to privacy while also protecting our nation's security. In July, I was one of 7 Democrats to vote against the Intelligence Authorization Act because it did not contain any significant reforms to curb government surveillance. That's why I joined my colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees urging them to finally take up meaningful surveillance reform legislation before Section 215 and related FISA provisions expire on December 15 of this year. Regrettably, this CR is yet another example of Congress's habit of kicking the can down the road instead of engaging in long-overdue, substantive debate on surveillance reform legislation. Congress owes it to the American people to end government mass surveillance and restore Americans' civil liberties and constitutional rights. As I've always said, while we must ensure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to assess, detect, and prevent future terrorist attacks, I don't believe we have to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to fight terrorism. The bottom line is that it is beyond time for Congress to provide long-term stability and funding in its annual appropriations process. The Democratic-led House completed nearly all of its appropriations bills before September 30, the end of the Fiscal Year. Because the Senate did not get its work done in time, bridge funding in the form of continuing resolutions has been needed to keep the government open. Congress needs to get its act together and halt the ridiculous and irresponsible lurching from short-term fix to short-term fix. I hope the Senate can get its work done so we can finally stop the budget gimmicks and spend our time working on important issues like fighting climate change, improving access to health care, upgrading our dilapidated infrastructure, investing in public education, and more. That is what Americans expect, and that is what they deserve.