Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is perhaps nothing more central to communities large and small than their local restaurants. Restaurants play host to everything from first dates to marriage proposals and many of life's important memories. The focal restaurant industry supports Top Chef Masters, first jobs, and parents working double-shifts to give their children a brighter future. The COVID-19 pandemic has put all of this in jeopardy. Since mid-March, the vast majority of independent restaurants have closed their doors, laid off most of their employees, and are unsure what their business model will be after the pandemic. While independent restaurants employ more than 11 million people, the food supply chain touches every corner of the country and every congressional district. From farm workers and fishermen to truck drivers and distributors, the restaurant industry provides a $1 trillion annual boost to the United States; economy, to say nothing of supporting tens of millions of livelihoods. The restaurant industry has been uniquely devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is particularly true of independent establishments that account for more than three-quarters of all restaurants and bars in the United States. The restaurant sector is the top contributor to unemployment rolls across America. In April alone, 5.5 million restaurant workers lost their jobs, accounting for 27 percent of total job losses in the month. Some of these jobs are coming back but many will not return without assistance.The National Bureau of Economic Research predicts that only 15 percent of restaurants will be able to stay open if the COVID-19 pandemic lasts six months. The RESTAURANTS Act would establish a $120 billion restaurant revitalization fund at the Department of Treasury. Funding would be available to food service or drinking establishments that are not publicly traded or part of a chain with 20 or more locations doing business under the same name. The grant values would cover the difference between revenues from 2019 and projected revenues through 2020. The first 14 days of the grant's availability is only available to restaurants with annual revenues of $1.5 million or fewer, ensuring that the smallest restaurants are prioritized. Additionally, the legislation includes administrative funding toward outreach and engagement to restaurants owned and operated by women, Veterans, and people of color. A study on this proposal found that the fund would generate at least $183 billion in primary benefits and $65 billion in secondary benefits--more than double the amount of the fund. In the past three months, Congress has demonstrated the political will to pass more than $3 trillion of relief to most sectors of the economy--the House of Representatives just passed an additional $3 trillion of relief. There were broad-based programs and there was targeted relief for specific industries. Yet restaurants have not been a recipient of any targeted relief. We can't afford not to act. Millions of livelihoods, hundreds of thousands of businesses, and the fabric of our communities is at stake.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we face a challenge even greater than the Great Depression, it is imperative that we pass the HEROES Act today and then continue to fight. Next, I hope we tailor a specific plan to rescue America's 500,000 neighborhood restaurants and their 11 million workers. Without action soon, 80 percent of them will go out of business this year, causing not just more economic loss and unemployment but irreparable damage to every community and every neighborhood in America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has upended life as we know it and has impacted every aspect of American society. The abrupt health and economic turmoil caused by COVID-19 has left businesses, workers and families questioning the security of their futures. Our nation's small businesses are among those who have felt this pandemic most acutely. To prevent workers from choosing between their health and a paycheck we passed sweeping and unprecedented legislation to shield American businesses from the full economic consequences of COVID-19. However, state-legal cannabis small businesses were excluded from this economic relief and remain ill- equipped to respond to the health and economic crisis before them. Small businesses across the country are being asked to do their part in keeping their workers, customers, and families safe. To support these efforts, on March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the CARES Act, which contains $376 billion in relief for American workers and small businesses. However, many state-legal cannabis small businesses are not eligible for this-relief and are being asked to protect workers and their families without the federal support available to other American small businesses. State-legal cannabis entrepreneurs and their workers are no different from those of other industries, and since COVID-19 does not discriminate, the inability of certain groups to protect themselves could inadvertently jeopardize the health of us all. The Emergency Cannabis Small Business Health and Safety Act would open access to SBA assistance relating to COVID-19 to state-legal cannabis businesses and their service providers. Specifically, this legislation would allow state-legal cannabis businesses to be eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), and Economic Injury Disaster Loans emergency advances. Among other things, this support is specifically designed to be used to pay workers, group health benefits and paid sick leave. The health and safety of the American people must be put first during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without doing so, we risk undermining the efforts of us all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for yielding me time. I am in awe of the countless unsung heroes who made it possible for all of us to get here safely today. We thank them. I am here not just to vote for badly needed additional relief, but in support of the Speaker and our leadership in their successful effort resisting the Republicans and the Senate in fighting against making it better. But I am here to give voice to my fellow Oregonians, who know so much more needs to be done, that it is outrageous that big banks and the Trump administration gave too much to the wrong people and not enough to those most in need. The administration can do something that costs taxpayers nothing: clarify the PPP provisions with a simple answer on how exactly the forgiveness provisions are going to work. I was on the phone until 1 a.m. last night with a small businesswoman in Portland who, because of this lack of clarity, is unsure if she should even accept the loan that she has been given. We must do better for the small businesses and the millions of jobs that depend upon them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is a welcome sign to the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians I represent who are worried about staying healthy, keeping their job, and paying their bills. This legislation is by no means perfect, nor does it do nearly enough to stop the spread of COVID-19, but it is immeasurably better than the Senate's initial bill. I strongly support this legislation today, but it is critical that we start working immediately on the next bill to speed the recovery of our economy and strengthen the healthcare system. Americans need a coordinated, whole-of-government response to provide healthcare and economic security during the coronavirus pandemic. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 includes many of the provisions that I advocated for in my Economic Stabilization Plan. First, the bill includes direct cash assistance of $1,200 per individual and $2,400 for married couples. The bill also includes a temporary expansion of Unemployment Insurance so that workers affected by COVID-19 and eligible for unemployment compensation--including non-traditional employment like the self- employed and gig workers--receive an extra $600 per week, resulting in weekly benefits that replace 100 percent of wages for the average worker. For local businesses, the bill provides nearly $350 billion in forgivable loans and grants to small businesses and non-profits so they can continue to pay their employees and cover other expenses during this crisis, like rent, mortgage payments, or utilities. Small businesses also will have access to emergency grants of up to $10,000 to provide immediate relief for operating costs once a small business or non-profit has applied for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. Finally, this legislation creates a new employee retention tax credit for employers to encourage businesses to keep workers on payroll during the crisis. Importantly, House and Senate Democrats fixed a glaring flaw in the Republican bill by adding important restrictions on the federal loan assistance for larger businesses, including a prohibition on excessive executive compensation and stock buybacks and a requirement that the businesses keep workers employed. We also set up an independent Inspector General and Congressional Oversight Panel to closely monitor this program, a marked improvement to the no-strings attached bailout we saw in 2008. While I still have strong concerns about how the Trump administration will administer this program, I am committed to closely monitoring the program and working with my colleagues to add even more restrictions in future legislation. This crisis is of course a health crisis, and this bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to support America's healthcare system. In particular, the bill creates a $100 billion fund for hospitals and providers hit hardest by the outbreak. These funds can be used to purchase personal protective equipment for health workers, testing supplies, additional equipment to deal with a surge of severely ill patients, and other necessities that hospitals desperately need. The CARES Act of 2020 also provides funding for our public health infrastructure, like community health centers, which are critical to our COVID-19 response. I am also pleased that this legislation protects the integrity of our elections during this pandemic by providing resources to states to increase election accessibility, which could include voting by mail. I am working with Speaker Pelosi and Chairperson Lofgren to expand upon this language in the next coronavirus legislation to guarantee that every American can do what we do already in Oregon--vote by mail. I also commend the important safeguards we have put in place so that no new money intended to help keep our country safe is diverted to building a wall on the southern border or used to further separate immigrant families. While this legislation provides more resources for healthcare workers and temporarily stabilizes parts of the economy, it is only one step Congress must take. I urge my colleagues to join me in working on the next phase of our legislative response. Any future package must have more resources for healthcare workers to effectively stop the spread of COVID-19, additional funding for long-term economic certainty for workers and families, and actions to permanently strengthen the social safety net. We must do more to provide for safe and secure elections and must also address the climate crisis head on. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and the people I represent to build on this legislation to do more of what is needed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, Amo Houghton was a dear friend and for many of us, probably the most respected member of Congress from either party. He was thoughtful, positive and constructive. When Congress was bitterly divided during the Newt Gingrich era, it seems almost quaint now, Amo stepped up to bring us together. He was always the voice for civility, thoughtful policy and bipartisanship before that became merely a talking point. Amo was a modest, quiet, unassuming gentleman. You would never know that he was the only fortune 500 CEO to ever serve in Congress, coming from a distinguished family long successful in business, politics and philanthropy. Yet, he was unpretentious. He cared about good policy and more important than the institution, he cared about the people . . . members and staff. He was a thoughtful conservative who voted against gimmicks like a balanced-budget amendment despite its popularity with his Republican colleagues. He was against the Iraq war when it had overwhelming support from not just the Bush administration and fellow Republicans, but the majority of the American public. Amo was ahead of his time in so many ways. He was deeply concerned about the human dynamic. He didn't just care about ``people.'' He cared about you. He was a strong supporter of the ``Faith and Politics'' program and efforts at racial reconciliation. His was a unique voice. His positions would be almost unimaginable in today's Congress, but anyone who knew Amo would respect him and more than a few would quietly agree with him. When I was first elected, I luckily moved into an office next to Amo's. He helped this former freshman member in innumerable ways. His wife Priscilla was herself an amazing person: strong, thoughtful, understated, and civil. She was a dedicated bike rider and was cremated in her favorite dress, wearing a bike pin as did all the ushers at the funeral. Amo was a consistent voice for people in Congress to do the right thing. He and Priscilla touched many of our lives and made us better people, His participation and example can, and should, live on in this Congress and beyond. His friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, and admirers share a profound sense of loss in the wake of his passing. But we are all better people for having known him and the influence he had on our lives.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Novel Coronavirus (``COVID-19'') has already infected more than 100,000 people worldwide and killed more than 4,000 people. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are anxious about their health, safety, and job security. Earlier today, the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a global pandemic and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases acknowledged that COVID-19 is ``going to get worse.'' Without broad congressional action, COVID-19 has the potential to disrupt every aspect of American society, including the 2020 primary and general elections. The virus will likely impact voters who cannot leave their homes as well as those who are under mandatory or self- imposed quarantines at the recommendation of health experts. To make matters worse, the Election Assistance Commission has found that 58 percent of all poll workers in 2018 were over 60--the prime at-risk population for COVID-19. The Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020 requires that states and localities create and publish a plan to operate their elections if large numbers of voters or poll workers have been subjected to a mandatory quarantine or a self-quarantine at the advice of government officials or health experts. In the event that a quarter of states declaring an emergency related to COVID-19, another infectious disease, or a natural disaster, this legislation also requires states to offer all voters the ability to vote by absentee ballot. Finally, this legislation requires that states offer prepaid self-sealing postage to voters who vote absentee in order to reduce the risk associated with infection at post offices. It is critical that we take a broad view of the response to COVID-19 and ensure that our elections are safe, secure, and accessible to all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I am saddened that they somehow feel that this is boiling down to some sort of notion of choice, discrimination against African Americans. Let's get a grip here. The cigarette is the only product which, if used as directed, will kill you. That is why Big Tobacco has become a genius at marketing. They have to replace their customers that they kill every day by the thousands. That is why they are looking at being able to hook, especially, young people who are more impressionable, and they will smoke longer if they are addicted. That is how they hooked my father. He was part of the GIs in the Pacific who got free cigarettes and became addicted. It killed him. This is the latest chapter in this insidious marketing juggernaut. I am sorry, it is not discrimination against African Americans who somehow have a genetic predisposition toward menthol flavoring. That is the result of tactics by Big Tobacco, by using advertising, politics, culture to target this population, and it has been successful. Their use is much higher than the general population. Dealing with vaping and e-cigarettes is the latest chapter in that recruitment that they have to replace the customers who die. Well, I would suggest that, first and foremost, it is widely understood that taxation is the single most effective mechanism to discourage use, especially for young people. We are doing it in this legislation, and it is important. Now, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle, my good friend from Oregon, holding up two charts, products that will be illegal, that are widely available now, and then talking about cannabis products and that there is no regulation. Well, that is because we have failed to actually deal with regulating cannabis. That is like regulating flavored heroin. When we tax and regulate cannabis--and we have legislation that has passed out of the Judiciary Committee that would enable us to have regulation. The Commerce Committee is looking at being able to research, but we are prohibited by outmoded Federal law from actually being able to research this. The challenge that we have now is to be able to move forward, to be able to protect young people and the public. Cannabis is a red herring. If we tax and regulate it, then we can deal with the products they are talking about. But unless and until, as two-thirds of the States have done, we actually tax and regulate it, we can't deal with that. That doesn't matter. But today we can do something. Today, we can move this legislation forward to protect young people, to have a reasonable tax mechanism, to be able to finally strike a blow against the Big Tobacco marketing juggernaut that is e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco. I strongly urge support of this legislation. I appreciate what has been done going forward. We should not fall for the phony argument that somehow because we haven't regulated cannabis, we haven't solved the problem.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Understanding and Studying American (USA) Civics Act of 2020. Today, only 32 percent of Americans can name all three government branches. That means two-thirds of the people in the U.S. are not equipped with foundational knowledge necessary to participate in and navigate our democracy. Investing in civics education is key to ensuring that future participants and leaders in our democracy are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to do so. The USA Civics Act of 2020 would provide grants to establish and strengthen civics programs to promote more comprehensive understandings of the history, achievements, and global impacts of American constitutional and representative democracy. Specifically, the bill supports the efforts of social science teachers in primary and secondary schools. In addition to funding teacher initiatives and educational curricula and materials, the USA Civics Act of 2020 would provide funding to develop open educational resources and outreach activities. The USA Civics Act promotes the study of American political thought and constitutional democracies globally, invests in opportunities for civics educators to deepen their knowledge of the field, and opens new doors for our young future leaders to learn how they can participate in the country's political life. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I feel very strongly about this. The United States Postal Service moves almost half the world's mail. It is the most popular Federal agency, highest ratings. And, in fact, if you look at the interaction that we have with postal workers, in my community and elsewhere, they are deeply beloved. I had a father-in-law who was a postal worker. In the holiday season he was burdened down with cookies and fruitcake and brandy that was given to him by the people on his route. What we have seen, unfortunately, since 2006, is part of an assault on the finest Postal Service in the world. You have heard it said before on the floor; this is the only--not just the only Federal agency, I don't think there is any entity in the United States that is required to prefund health benefits for people who haven't yet been born but might be employed 20, 30, 40 years from now. This is part of an effort on behalf of some who literally have a jihad against the U.S. Postal Service. I had a session in my community 2 weeks ago where we heard about a bizarre experiment on casing mail, taking that away from the letter carriers, and it has resulted in a serious disruption in our community by people who are disconnected from the actual service that is given. Postal jobs are the best jobs in many rural and small American towns. And there are some who feel, well, they are paid too much. They have too generous benefits or retirement. That is hogwash. They provide that foundation in much of rural and small-town America; a beloved service, a service that provides an essential connection for virtually the entire country, 6 days a week, and, in fact, if we get our act together, there is more benefit that can be provided. Get rid of this stupid prefunding and give them more flexibility about the services they can provide. Why aren't we using the U.S. Postal Service to help us with the census? These people know who lives in the neighborhood. Why are we hiring temporary employees? Why can't we use the Postal Service to deal with problems in the future, if we have an outbreak of an anthrax-sort of activity in terms of lethal threats. Use the Postal Service. Give them the flexibility to provide more service. Respect the men and women who work there, and stop this stupid effort to undercut the finest Postal Service in the world. I appreciate the committee bringing this legislation forward. I appreciate the bipartisan support, and maybe it is time we get our act straight to help them fulfill their full potential.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My service in the House has been marked by a loss of Congress' power to deal with war and peace. I am proud to stand with my friend, Congresswoman Lee, as I did with her in her 2002 amendment. Republicans empowered President Bush for the worst foreign policy blunder in our history, and we are still paying the price for the war in Iraq. It is time to end this bipartisan failure, time to end it, stand up for Congress. This is especially critical today with the reckless current occupant who cozies up to dictators like Putin and some of the worst people on the planet, and who attacks our allies with trade wars. He committed colossal blunders like breaking the Iranian nuclear agreement, which the Iranians had abided by, and by killing the second most powerful person in Iran, which made us less safe. It is time to vote for the Lee amendment, repeal the AUMF, a key tool to rein in a reckless President and reclaim the rightful powers of Congress over war and peace.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and bringing us together, and I have enjoyed listening to my colleagues walk us down memory lane. Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, these are painful memories, but we were here when the United States made the single biggest foreign policy blunder in our history, costing hundreds of thousands of lives in the Middle East--not just thousands of Americans--costing trillions of dollars. We are watching every day in America the price being paid by men and women who come back with injuries, both visible and those that aren't: PTSD, missing limbs, lost opportunities, and troubled families. Three days ago, there was a quotation describing what was going on with Boeing's design of the 737 MAX, where one of their engineers said it was designed by clowns and supervised by monkeys. I think that act, sadly, is what we are looking at, the clown act that is going on now, trying to sort out a rationale for another rash act that has, in fact, left us less safe. Now, Donald Trump campaigned tapping into the antiwar sentiment and professed to be against endless wars. He professed to have been against the war in Iraq. Of course, an examination of his record finds out, like most things, he is on both sides of that question. But he has taken a step that puts us in harm's way again. It recalls the Beirut tragedy, where there was the largest loss of life since World War II in a single day, October 23, 1983. 241 marines were lost in that car bombing in the barracks in Beirut. But that was preceded by what some, at this point, would, I think, fairly assess reckless action on behalf of the United States in terms of heavy shelling of Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, things that we could have done many times before but cooler heads prevailed because of some of the potential backlash. That was, indeed, a serious backlash, and we ended up not only having the loss of Marine lives; we had to withdraw and further unsettle that troubled area of the country. Well, what we have seen now is that, with one reckless act--the execution, the assassination of General Soleimani is something that we could have done. Prior Presidents knew his location. They could have assassinated him, and they certainly had no love lost for a truly reprehensible human being. But they knew that they needed to exercise restraint because the consequences could be grave. The one act of assassination has been fascinating to watch because what we have seen now is that the Iraqis, in their Parliament, have disinvited us, told us to leave. We have watched in Iran where just weeks before there were violent demonstrations that were put down by that repressive regime against their own people. People were demonstrating at great personal peril as the forces for reform were bubbling up. But wasn't it interesting. Immediately after that assassination by the United States in Iraq, not only did it consolidate Iraqis wanting us to leave, but it--at least, temporarily--united the Iranian people against us. But for the tragedy of shooting down a civilian airliner which was mistaken for an American bomber, there would have been--that has generated more hostility toward the regime, and it was their own ineptness that did that, no thanks to this administration. Watch what has been happening lately. We had a series of briefings that were scheduled to finally give information to some of the committees. I am under no illusion that they would be detailed, but at least they would have gone through the motions. They have been canceled, a series of them, with no good reason, after they had been scheduled, and people were looking forward to that conversation. Perhaps it is because this administration can't get its act together, can't get its stories straight. For the last 10 days, we have watched late night comedians use film clips of the Secretary of Defense, of the Secretary of State, of Donald Trump dissembling, tripping over themselves in not just fractured rhetoric and syntax but contradicting what, in fact, was their rationale, why, when, and where. It makes for good comedy, but unfortunately, this is serious. We are talking about a very fragile state in the Middle East. I was in the White House being briefed by Secretary of State Condi Rice and George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling us about an imminent danger then, but at least we had White House briefings, at least they went through the pretext. They were wrong, and they didn't persuade me or a number of my colleagues, some of whom you have heard from tonight, who voted against their authorization, voted against their reckless efforts. We have seen this movie before. I hope it doesn't spiral out of control again. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that Americans understand the stakes that are involved. It is important for Congress to finally reassert itself. I think knowing what we know now, those of us who opposed the Iraq war would have been overwhelmingly supported, and we would have rejected it. But we have had the benefit of history to be able to hopefully learn from our mistakes. We have legislation coming forward when we return to Washington in 2 weeks. H.R. 5543, the No War Against Iran Act sponsored by Representative Ro Khanna, a number of us are original cosponsors, agitating for this moving forward. It would prevent any funds from being used for military force against Iran, unless legislation is passed to specifically authorize such military action and clarify that Congress has not already authorized the use of force against Iran, specifically indicating those 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force do not authorize war with Iran. We need to pass that. The bill's text matches an amendment that passed on the House floor with 251 votes just last summer. And I would hope that we would find members of the House in both parties who voted for it last summer to add their voice and urge their Republican colleagues in the Senate to join us to permit a vote. We have H.R. 2456 to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, the resolution of 2002 led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who spoke so eloquently here a few moments ago. Again, I am proud to cosponsor and support it. It would eliminate the authorization for the use of force against Iraq resolution of 2002. And again, this matches a bipartisan amendment passed last summer with 242 votes in the House. These are simple, commonsense, bipartisan, and it is time for us to enact them into law. These were stripped out in the process of the budget that Republicans in the Senate and the administration would not go along with, but it is time, especially given the reckless acts of this administration recently, to go back, revisit, and approve each of these elements when we are given an opportunity on the floor of the House. I am absolutely convinced, based on conversations I have had with friends of mine, well-meaning Members of Congress at the time, who voted for that authorization, who voted for the war who felt that that was one of the worst votes they ever cast. We have an opportunity to unwind some of that now when we come back by approving those two pieces of legislation. I deeply appreciate my colleague organizing this conversation tonight. For some people it may seem like it is beating a dead horse. I think not. These are lessons that we learn too slowly. These are lessons that we have paid for in blood, in treasure, in upset in our communities, in pain and suffering in the United States and around the world. I hope that Congresswoman Tlaib will continue in her effort at being such a strong voice for peace and rationality, because we have to continue to amplify this message for the American people. I thank the congresswoman again for allowing me to participate in this conversation this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts setting the record straight. The war powers activity, the authorization of military force has been an issue that a number of us have been concerned with, Republican and Democrat, going back to the Clinton administration and activity in the Balkans, but what my friend from Massachusetts pointed out is that this reckless act by the President of the United States actually makes us less safe. With one act, he has been able to unite the opposition in Iran. Remember, they were demonstrating in the streets against the regime. And I have heard from friends of mine who have deep roots in Iran that this has probably set back the cause of reform years, if not decades, in Iran. We are less safe, not more. I strongly urge the approval of this resolution as a start to rein in the President's worst impulses, but we must also put in additional checks, by passing Representative Khanna's legislation to ensure no funds are used for an unauthorized war with Iran and Representative Lee's legislation to repeal the 2002 AUMF.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to get it right. And to take our friend, Mr. Cole's, word, we can move this forward. I see this as a beginning, and we can build on it, but rein in this administration. Send a strong signal. Approve this resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, President Trump has demonstrated the limitation of his reality show, go-it-alone, incoherent approach, which helped him eke out an electoral college victory while losing the popular vote by 3 million votes, but is spectacularly ill-equipped to govern, let alone respond to a crisis that he has made worse. Maybe there was a reason that Bush and Obama didn't kill Soleimani when they could. Evidently, his advisors put General Soleimani's assassination on the list of options because they thought it was so outrageous they didn't think he would choose it. If you thought abandoning our Kurdish allies who helped us fight ISIS was a heartless disaster, now Trump has managed to unite factions in Iran against us, delaying reform for years, while pushing us to the brink of war and making it more likely that Iran develops nuclear weapons after Iran followed the nuclear agreement that the President broke. Reportedly, Iranian missiles are launched on Americans in bases that the Iraqi Parliament said we should abandon. Congress must act to rein in this reckless President.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for his extraordinary efforts. Twenty-five years ago, NAFTA passed over strong opposition, with serious flaws. At the beginning of this Congress, we were given a bill by the administration that didn't address those problems. It didn't have the votes to pass and it didn't deserve to pass. I am proud of the work with our chairman; with our working group; the Speaker, who periodically invested huge amounts of time to keep it on track; and, of course, Ambassador Lighthizer, who was a great partner working with us. We are voting today on an agreement that has fundamentally been rewritten and strengthened. A personal priority for me was stripping unnecessary and harmful special provisions for Big Pharma. We have strengthened labor protections and enforcement. These are game changers. The help of AFL- CIO President Richard Trumka and, again, the Speaker were invaluable. We have had environmental improvements. My colleague from Oregon, Suzanne Bonamici, deserves great praise for being tenacious on that. We will attack the raw sewage many of us saw flowing into the Pacific in Tijuana. We finally have come to an agreement that can and should be passed. I appreciate the hard work of all our colleagues, and hope that this is a foundation that we can move forward on to deal with challenges we have with a global economy with the same spirit of cooperation and innovation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this. This is the largest transfer of wealth in American history with the tax bill of the Republicans. They kept the tax break for corporations and they are hitting middle class families in my district. Four in ten average about $15,000 a year. But one of the things we haven't talked about is the hit to home values. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Allan Sloan in Fortune magazine that talks about Trump's trillion dollar hit to homeowners. Trump's Trillion-Dollar Hit to Homeowners By reducing deductions for real estate taxes, Trump's 2017 tax plan has harmed millions--and helped give corporations a $680 billion gift. (by Allan Sloan) In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has been talking about plans for, as he put it, a ``very substantial tax cut for middle income folks who work so hard.'' But before Congress embarks on a new tax measure, people should consider one of the largely unexamined effects of the last tax bill, which Trump promised would help the middle class: Would you believe it has inflicted a trillion dollars of damage on homeowners--many of them middle class--throughout the country? That massive number is the reduction in home values caused by the 2017 tax law that capped federal deductions for state and local real estate and income taxes at $10,000 a year and also eliminated some mortgage interest deductions. The impact varies widely across different areas. Counties with high home prices and high real estate taxes and where homeowners have big mortgages are suffering the biggest hit, as you'd expect, given the larger value of the lost tax deductions. But as we'll see, homeowners all over the country are feeling the effects. I'm basing my analysis on numbers from two well-respected people: Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics; and Hugh Lamle, the retired president of M.D. Sass, a Wall Street investment management company. Zandi's numbers are broad--macro-math, as it were. Lamle (pronounced LAM-lee) is a master of micro-math. It was Lamle who first got me thinking about home value losses by sending me an economic model that he created to show the damage inflicted on high-end, high-bracket taxpayers in high-tax areas who paid seven digits or more for their homes. Lamle starts with the premise that homebuyers have typically figured out how much house they can afford by calculating how much they can spend on a down payment and monthly mortgage payment, adjusting the latter by the amount they'd save via the tax deduction for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. His model figures out how much prices would have to drop for the same monthly payment to cover a given house now that this notional buyer can't take advantage of the real estate tax deduction and might not be able to take full advantage of the mortgage interest deduction. After I showed Lamle's model to my ProPublica research partner, Doris Burke, she steered me to Zandi's research, which I realized could be used to calculate national value- loss numbers. Ready? Here we go. The broad picture first, then the specific. This gets a little complicated, so please bear with me. Zandi says that because of the 2017 tax law, U.S. house prices overall are about 4% lower than they'd otherwise be. The next question is how many dollars of lost home value that 4% translates into. That isn't so hard to figure out if you get your hands on the right numbers. Let me show you. The Federal Reserve Board says that as of March 31, U.S. home values totaled about $26.1 trillion. Apply Zandi's 4% number to that, and you end up with a $1.04 trillion setback for the nation's home owners. That's right--a trillion, with a T. Please note that Zandi isn't saying that house prices have fallen by an average of 4%. That hasn't happened. What he's saying is that on average, house prices are about 4% lower than they'd otherwise be. Given that the Fed statistics show that homeowners' equity was $15.76 trillion as of March 31, Zandi's numbers imply that homeowners' equity is down about 6.6% from where it would otherwise be. (That's the $1.04 trillion value loss divided by the $15.76 trillion of equity.) This is a very big deal to families whose biggest financial asset is the equity they have in their homes. And there are untold millions of families in that situation. While Zandi and I were having the first of several phone conversations, he sent me a county-by-county list of the estimated home-price damage done to about 3,000 counties throughout the country. I was fascinated--and appalled--to see that the biggest estimated value loss in percentage terms, 11.3%, was in Essex County, New Jersey, the New York City suburb where I live. In case you're interested--or just snoopy--the four other counties that make up the five biggest-losers list are: Westchester County, New York, suburban New York City, 11.1%; Union County, New Jersey, which is adjacent to Essex County, 11.0%; New York County, the New York City borough of Manhattan, 10.4%; and Lake County, Illinois, suburban Chicago, 9.9%. You can find Zandi's county-by-county list in our Data Store. Eyeball the list, and you'll see that counties throughout the country have home values lower than they would otherwise be. Here's how it works. Zandi took what financial techies call the ``present value'' of the property tax and mortgage interest deductions that homeowners will lose over seven years (the average duration of a mortgage) because of changes in the tax law and subtracted it from the value of the typical house. That results in a 3% decline in national home values below what they would otherwise be. The remaining one percentage point of value shrinkage, Zandi says, comes from the higher interest rates that he says will result from higher federal budget deficits caused by the tax bill. He estimates that rates on 10-year Treasury notes, a key benchmark for mortgage rates, will be 0.2% higher than they would otherwise be, which in turn will make mortgage rates 0.2% higher. Even though interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes are at or near record lows as I write this, they would be even lower if the Treasury were borrowing less than it's currently borrowing to cover the higher federal budget deficits caused by Trump's tax bill. If Zandi's interest-rate take is correct--it's true by definition, if you believe in the law of supply and demand-- even homeowners who aren't affected by the inability to deduct all their real estate taxes and mortgage interest costs are affected by the tax bill. How so? Because higher interest rates for buyers translate into lower prices for sellers and therefore produce lower values for owners. You can argue, as some people do, that real estate taxes should never have been deductible because allowing that deduction is bad economic policy that inflated home prices and favored higher-income people over lower-income people. But even if you believe that, there's no question that eliminating the deduction for millions of homeowners inflicted serious financial damage on homeowners who had no warning that a major tax deduction that they were used to getting would be wiped out. As a result, homebuyers who had taken the value of the real estate tax deduction into account when buying their homes had their home values and finances whacked without warning. Interest deductions on mortgage borrowings exceeding $750,000 were cut back, compared with interest deductions on up to $1 million under the old law--but that doesn't affect anywhere near as many people as the cap on real estate tax deductions does. (A brief aside: Among the modest winners here are first- time buyers who purchased their homes after the tax law took effect and benefited by paying less than they would have paid under the old tax rules.) Now, to the micro-math. Lamle's model isn't applicable to most people because it works only for taxpayers with a household income of at least $200,000 a year who paid at least $1 million for their homes. But the principle underlying Lamle's model applies to everyone who owns a home or is interested in owning one. To wit: You calculate the tax-law-caused loss of value by figuring out how much a house's price needs to fall for buyers' or owners' after-tax costs to be the same now as they were before the tax law changed. ``People buying large-ticket items typically focus on after-tax costs of ownership,'' Lamle told me. ``The amount that many buyers can afford is affected by limits on their financial resources. Therefore, as their tax costs increase substantially because of the loss of tax deductions, they have less money available to pay for homes and to take on mortgage debt.'' At the suggestion of one of my editors, I asked Lamle to use a modified version of his economic model to estimate the tax law's impact on the value of a theoretical house in the New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very high by national standards--but middle class by the standards of large parts of suburban Essex County. Real estate tax on that theoretical house would run about $28,900 a year, according to statistics from the New Jersey state treasurer's office. That tax used to be fully deductible for federal tax purposes. Now, it's not deductible at all if you assume that the house's owners are taking the standard deduction on their federal returns. Or that even if they're itemizing deductions, they're paying at least $10,000 of state income taxes, which means they don't get any benefit from deducting property taxes. According to Lamle's calculations, this inability to deduct real estate tax has reduced the home's value by $138,720, assuming a 5% mortgage rate. At a 4% rate, the value loss is $173,400. (For the math and assumptions underlying these numbers, see his methodology below.) So if the family put up $200,000--25% of the purchase price--to buy the house, more than half of that investment has been wiped out. Obviously, it's impossible to prove that Zandi and Lamle are right about the impact they say the tax law is having (and will continue to have) on home prices, because there's no way to gauge the accuracy of their numbers. But the logic is compelling. The loss in home values is crucial because it turns out that lots more people have bigger financial stakes in their houses than in their stock portfolios, which have thrived as the Trump tax law turbocharged corporate earnings and stock prices. In fact, 73.5% of households that own homes, stocks or both had bigger stakes in the home market than in the stock market, according to David Rasnick, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who parsed Federal Reserve data at my request. Now, let's put things in perspective, set aside home value losses for a minute and talk about the cash that people are getting from Trump's 2017 tax law. It isn't all that much for most families. Households' average federal income tax has fallen by $1,260 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. That average is skewed by big savings realized by people with big incomes; the median family's tax cut is only about half as much as the average cut, by the Tax Policy Center's math. This means that--for taxpayers of higher income and more modest income--the income tax savings are likely small beer compared with the hidden loss inflicted on many of them by lower house values. Back to the main event. And some final--but important-- numbers. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Treasury will get $620 billion of additional revenue over a 10-year period because people can't deduct their full state and local taxes. That, in turn, covers most of the 10-year, $680 billion cost of the income tax break that corporations are getting. So you can make a case that my friends and neighbors and co- workers in New York and New Jersey--and many of you all over the country--are paying more federal income tax in order to help corporations pay less federal income tax. That, my friends, is the bottom line.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. By denying the full SALT deduction, you are making it more expensive to buy homes, you are having a lower resale value, it is a loss of net worth, plus there is about a 1 percent hit because of the higher interest rates that are going to come because your tax bill of $2 trillion is on the collar. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to look at this to see how pervasive the hit is, not just to their income tax, but to their most precious asset, their home value.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, thanks to the hard work of our committees and the leadership of the Speaker, we found overwhelming evidence Trump invited foreign interests to interfere in our elections for his personal gain, and then he took unprecedented efforts to cover it up, obstructing Congress. I am proud of the courage of new Members to do their duty, so that, for the first time in his privileged life, Donald Trump will be finally held accountable for his reckless personal behavior and business practices. I vote proudly for these two Articles of Impeachment. And then I hope the House retains control of the articles until the Speaker and Leader Schumer can negotiate an agreement on process and witnesses from McConnell so that the next stage will be open and fair so that Donald Trump will ultimately be held accountable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership. I strongly urge that my colleagues reject the cynical approach that is being advanced by our Republican friends. Think about it for a moment. We are talking about challenging the monopoly that the Republicans gave, making it illegal to negotiate drug prices. As a result, we have heard already in the course of this debate that our constituents pay four times more, on average, than other countries. Sometimes it is 67 times as much. What would happen if we were able to slightly restrain that monopoly power and have a little competition? The Republicans are so cynical that they say the first thing the drug companies will do is not cut executive bonuses, not cut back on stock buybacks, not cut back on bizarre advertising. The first thing the pharmaceutical industry would do, in the vision of the Republicans, is cut back on vital research. Give me a break. They already spend less on research than they do on the items that I have mentioned. I really believe that, even though we have big differences with them--and I think we settled some of those scores in the recent trade negotiations--I have a hard time believing that they would make patients suffer instead of cutting back a little bit on executive compensation or stock buybacks. I am proud that we have stood firm against Big Pharma in our trade negotiations, and I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this legislation that will lower prescription drug prices by almost $2,000 per average family. It will have savings that will expand Medicare benefits to include dental, vision, and hearing--critical benefits for the older constituents whom we all represent. It reinvests the savings in Federal health programs, drug innovation, and medical research.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, reject this cynical view that the drug companies will punish consumers before they will restrain some of the excesses if we finally take back part of the monopoly powers that the Republicans gave to the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we should not split hairs. We need to reaffirm our policy with this resolution because Congress in the past has not been clear enough. In my visits to Israel I have been struck how young people, Palestinian and Jews alike, believe passionately in a two-state solution, but, increasingly, they doubt that it is possible. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's reckless policies are increasing that doubt. The latest is giving a green light to the destructive settlement policy and its expansion. Make no mistake: Trump and Netanyahu are currently careening towards a one-state solution, one that will challenge the ability of Israel to be both a democracy and a Jewish state. Jimmy Carter said in his book that we are choosing between democracy and apartheid. This resolution suggests that we choose for democracy a negotiated solution; and reaffirming our longstanding goals, correct the ambiguity, get us back on track, and give hope to those young people in Israel, both Jew and Palestinian.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and for organizing what I think is one of the most important discussions that this Congress needs to have. Housing is fundamental. It has been the major source of wealth generation for millions of middle-class Americans and an even greater source of wealth accumulation for upper income Americans. But, sadly, it has been a source of discrimination and widening income inequality because of decades of systematic discrimination by the Federal Government against people of color, especially African Americans. I am embarrassed that in my community, returning World War II veterans were denied opportunities to live in neighborhoods where they could actually afford the loans. The redlining practices denied them an opportunity to be able to secure government-financed lending. We had practices in the real estate industry that actively steered people away from certain neighborhoods. We had areas where people resisted allowing people of color to move in. The Federal Government did not enforce constitutional antidiscrimination provisions. Madam Speaker, the consequences of decades of neglect, discrimination, and underinvestment is visible today in most major American cities. It is obvious in my community, where we are seeing a homeless population that is persistent and growing. We are seeing in communities large and small people who are rent- burdened, as my colleagues have already referenced, with half the people paying more than a third of their income, many of them over half, if they can qualify as renters at all. The Federal Government has systematically reduced its modest housing footprint, not being involved in new housing construction for low- income and extremely low-income people. There is no way, despite Ben Carson's mumbo jumbo, that those people can be self-sufficient, in terms of housing. They need direct government assistance. The failure to have adequately housed them plays out in our streets. Inadequate housing has health consequences. In fact, we are watching now some of America's hospital systems realizing that fact and investing in housing opportunities and wraparound services because people who are not adequately housed actually cost society far more. We are watching steps that are being taken in the private sector to recognize that this is the quickest way to close that income inequality gap. It is the quickest way to strengthen communities. In fact, it has profound consequences for education. Children who are housed not in concentrated poverty but in housing opportunities that integrate them into broader communities have much better performance in schools without increasing the number of teachers, without increasing the per capita spending per pupil. Where those children live is the most profound indicator of future academic success. I have been troubled with this issue for years. This summer, I spent time developing a report on why the Federal Government needs to get back into the housing game. It is entitled ``Locked Out: Reversing Federal Housing Failures and Unlocking Opportunity.'' It is available on my website. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that we finally recognize housing is a fundamental right. The United Nations recognized it as a fundamental human right in 1948, and we are a long way from that point. We need to invest in reducing the shortage of 7 million affordable rental homes available to extremely low-income people. No State has an adequate supply of affordable homes. I propose building 12 million new public housing units and fully funding all the maintenance need in the existing public housing stock rather than slowly starving the authorities in their ability to maintain an adequate housing stock. I think it is past time to create a renter's tax credit to cover the difference between the rent and wages or making Section 8 vouchers an entitlement program available for all who qualify. Yes, it will be expensive, but we are already spending huge amounts of money subsidizing housing. The problem is that the subsidies go to people who need the help the least. The mortgage interest deduction provides most of the support for people at the upper income levels, people who already have housing. In countries around the world that don't even have a mortgage interest deduction, there is no great variation in homeownership rates. We can adjust that now. There is an opportunity for us, and I have proposed equalizing the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction by converting it into a credit so that it treats people at various income levels equally. I also think it is past time to eliminate a mortgage interest deduction for second homes and, instead, invest that money in helping people who don't have housing today. It may seem to some that these are ambitious proposals, but I would suggest that the cost of past discrimination, the cost of inaction, costs us far more in terms of wasted human potential, increased law enforcement, increased health costs, and poor academic performance. Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleagues coming forward with this discussion and working together on provisions that can make a difference. We just had the Republicans pass the largest transfer of wealth in America's history, adding $2 trillion to our national debt and doing nothing to deal with the housing crisis. In fact, it created housing burdens in States by wiping out the deduction for State and local income taxes, for instance. I think it is time for us to stop paying for failure, to reassess our policies, to reverse decades of past discrimination, and to do things that will make a difference for American families.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this week, friends, colleagues, supporters, and family of David Skillman gathered to thank him for over a dozen years of outstanding Congressional service, most recently, as my Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff. David is the very model of professionalism. His hard work and dedication to innovative policy making represent the very best of the men and women who make Congress function. David came by his service honestly with parents who themselves were congressional staff early in their careers. David joked that as an infant, he was the youngest staff member of his fourth district Congressman. As he rose through the ranks in our office, he was unstinting in his work ethic, his insight, and his integrity. Accolades have poured into our office from his former colleagues from all over America who were touched by his leadership, mentorship, and friendship. Together, with his wife Sara Chieffo, a senior executive at the League of Conservation Voters, they were perhaps the Capitol's premier ``green power couple.'' David's fingerprints are on dozens of major pieces of legislation both from our office and the Ways and Means Committee. For over a decade, his impact has been profound and his legacy has made a difference to us all. His innate decency and intellect served as an inspiration to me and all of his colleagues. Whatever he does in the next phases of his career, we are better for his service and I know that his contributions will continue to make America better. We thank him for his invaluable contribution to our office and to Congress. I am deeply indebted for his service and friendship.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership and our friend from the Northern Mariana Islands for moving this legislation forward. This is about leadership in terms of ending the global practice. My colleague from Louisiana understates the power that the United States has in terms of getting our policies right. Yes, we have outlawed shark finning in 2010, but the international traffic continues, and we need to take this next step. This is a progression of efforts to try to deal with animal welfare. This is one of the first arguments we hear whether it is illegal poaching, the ivory trade, or other endangered species, we have been able to set the table on a global stage to be able to change the dynamics, to change the economics, and to change public perception. Sharks are declining globally. There may be a species or two here or there, but, overall, this apex predator species--so important for the health of the ecosystem--is in peril, and the practice of shark finning is part of this. Mr. Speaker, you have heard about de-finning while they are still alive and discarding them back in the water which is a very common practice. We know that my State of Oregon is one where people stepped up and ended this barbaric practice. We have mobilized voting initiatives where we deal with problems of trafficking with exotic species. It has proven that our action in 2010 prohibiting the taking of fins was not enough as long as this global trade continues unchecked. There still is a market for the fins in the United States and around the world, and it is fueled by imports sourced from all over the world, including locations with no ban. We are one of the top 15 shark fin importing nations. Who knew? As a result, it is highly likely that shark fins sold in the United States came from sharks that have been brutally finned. I am pleased that we are taking action to do the right thing and ban the trade of shark fins. I hope the Senate takes this bill up quickly and passes it so we can get it enacted into law. This is one of the things we could actually agree with. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the bipartisan support evidenced here today. But I hope that we can continue forward with an animal welfare agenda. There is a series of bills on a bipartisan basis, for example, the PREPARED Act, to help animals during natural disasters, the Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act to combat wildlife trafficking, and the SAFE Act to prevent horse slaughter. We have these bipartisan pieces of legislation with major sources of cosponsors. They are teed up and ready to go. I hope this passes today with overwhelming support, and it is one more step as we implement an animal welfare agenda that is one of the areas where we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make the world a little better.