Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill out that would reauthorize the farm bill. This is the most important bill that most Americans don't pay that much attention to. Sadly, I don't think it gets the attention that it needs here in Congress. This is just the beginning of a long process to deal with the bill that is going to be the most important health bill that this Congress will consider, because it would have us continue to subsidize a diet that literally makes Americans sick. It is the most important environmental bill, in terms of carbon emissions and water quality, and it makes a big difference for the men and women who are in the agriculture sector. There are long-term challenges that we face, such as beginning farmers and ranchers and what happens in terms of transition. The average farmer is 58.2 years of age. What are we going to do to provide the workforce for the future, to transition lands, to be able to get the most out of the investment in the lands? The bill that is awaiting House action--and I hope it awaits House action a long time, because there are many things we can do to make it better--would cut environmental funding, even though only one out of four applications for environmental programs ever get funded. The environmental programs are not performance-based to make sure that we get the most benefit for those dollars. The bill does not rein in unnecessary subsidies. Indeed, it broadens loopholes and coverage to have subsidies go to more people who are only tangentially related to operating the farm and people who don't necessarily need it. But the thing that I find most troubling is the provision known as the King amendment. This provision in the farm bill would prohibit State and local governments from being able to set their own protections for agriculture, food, and the environment. Every State has agriculture and fishing industries that have their own special needs: pests, disease, and protections for consumers. The interest of various industries are widely different across the country. The needs of the fisheries of the Great Lakes are different from those of the Gulf Coast, New England, and the Pacific Northwest. The King amendment would prevent States from being able to tailor protections to their own industry and their own consumers. I strongly urge my colleagues to investigate what this provision would mean. There is a great study from the Harvard Law School about an analysis of H.R. 4879 and the King amendment preempting State laws, for instance, on sell-by or best-used dates for shellfish, meat, dairy, and eggs. It would prevent States from stopping the import of pests that kill fruit, nut, and lumber trees. It would allow fishing vessels to fish waters of the various States without complying with the rules of those States, if their States have different provisions. It would even prohibit pet distributor licenses from being denied animal abusers. These are the sorts of things that, when the public looks at it, they are shaking their heads in wonder. Why would Congress have a race to the bottom for protections for the environment, consumers, and animal protections? It is interesting. There was a provision voted on by people in Oklahoma in the fall of 2016. The so-called ``freedom to farm'' has many of these same provisions. When the voters in Oklahoma did a deep dive, they rejected the Farm Bureau's initiative by a 60-40 margin. That is the State that gave Donald Trump his largest margin of victory for any State, other than West Virginia. I hope Congress does what the people of Oklahoma did: look at the details, understand what it would do, and reject unnecessary restrictions on the ability of your State and local government to tailor protections for the people who fish, farm, and shop. We can do better. I hope that we are going to be able to enlist the support of the vast majority of Congress to take a moment, pause, and look at a farm bill that is worthy of this body.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when I look at what this Congress-- particularly, under Republican rule--has done trying to intervene to supersede science, to have political decisions on things that really deserve balance with the environment, with treaty rights, dealing with the long-term perspective, it is not a very encouraging record. I strongly urge that we side with environmentalist groups, with our two Governors, with a number of us in the delegation to allow this process to work and not undercut it and put us back in court. If so, I will guarantee that we will be back here next year and the year after that with things worse rather than better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and the elements that he just put into the Record. These are tough issues. The Bonneville Dam, one of the elements here, is in my district. I have been involved with these issues, literally, for decades. I have watched the give-and-take. Part of what we are facing today is the legacy of our moving in to create the Bonneville system without really knowing what we were doing when we started. There was a rich fisheries existence. Rumor had it that you could actually--people claimed you could walk across the backs of the salmon when they were spawning. The dams implemented, good for producing energy, not good for the fishery system, both in terms of the river and the marine ecosystem that depends on it. And it is not just the commitment to the Endangered Species Act and the environment. We are dealing here with commitments to Native Americans who have been ill-served with their treaty rights. That is one of the reasons why we have litigated this for years, because they had valid treaty rights as a sovereign people, and the United States violated them; and only recently, under the pressure of litigation, were we responsive to their needs and some changes were made. Now, it is not just the current Federal judge. We have had objections through the Judiciary looking at some of the compromises that people have made. I understand the political pressures. I watch it in terms of the economy, in terms of transportation, in terms of Native Americans, in terms of fish and wildlife, in terms of agricultural interests. These are difficult and troublesome efforts, and there is no good response because we have made more commitments than the mighty Columbia River can deliver on. We treat it like a machine, and we have difficulty reconciling it. The judge in the case has found that the plan was wanting and has put in place a system for the new BiOp. This legislation is not going to stop litigation. If it passes, I will guarantee you, we will be back in court, and I think there is a very strong likelihood that, rather than moving it forward, it will delay it. Look at the record in terms of the opponents to approaches like this on how they have fared in court. It is not a good record. Now, I would suggest strongly that we are better served by allowing this process to go forward. Respect NEPA; respect the Endangered Species Act; respect the process that is put in place; and look at all the options. Now, I am not saying tomorrow we are going to tear down Snake River dams, but there are lots of options short of dam removal. When we start taking things off the table, we limit our ability to meet our responsibilities under the law and under our treaty obligations and, candidly, in what is going to be in the best interest of solving a very complex issue. I would hope that we would reject this legislation not only because I think it is ill-advised--I think it undercuts the environment, our obligations to the Native Americans, that it will delay it rather than accelerate it--but I think it provides a precedent that we don't want to have. I don't think we want to have Congress intervening in the midst of these processes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's courtesy in permitting me to join him on this Special Order this evening. I appreciate the partnership that we have had on the Ways and Means committee and dealing with these issues publicly. It is true, I cosponsored the legislation that our aforementioned friend, Mr. Gaetz, referenced. I have been cosponsoring and introducing legislation like this for years. In fact, my Veterans Access Amendment actually passed both the House and the Senate last Congress, only to fall victim behind the scenes of, I think, misguided action on the part of leadership. I am pleased that we have been able to retain the Rohrabacher- Blumenauer amendment that protects State legal medical marijuana, and I look forward to working with my colleague, as I know he wants to extend those protections to all State legal efforts. I want to say, as somebody who has spent a lot of time moving around the country working on these State campaigns, working with the industry, working with advocates, that I appreciate Mr. Curbelo's advocacy, that he is moving out of his district being involved with this conversation nationally and looking for opportunities to strengthen the position on the floor of the House. We are in a situation now, Mr. Speaker, where we have virtually every Democrat who now supports these simple, commonsense reforms, and, in no small measure due to my friend from Florida's persuasive efforts, there are several dozen Republicans, and that number is sure to grow either before or after the next election. This is an issue that we have watched slowly take shape. I was in the Oregon Legislature when we were the first State to decriminalize back in the 1970s, but there was sort of a hiatus for about 20 years. There was Richard Nixon's ill-advised and, I think, unfortunate and unfair war on drugs, the Schedule I categorization of marijuana. If we were doing it over again, probably it wouldn't be scheduled at all, but tobacco would be Schedule I because it is deadly and addictive. In the course of the last 6 years, we have watched what has happened at the State level accelerate. It has been medical marijuana since 1996. But starting in 2012 with Colorado, Washington, and, more recently, we had initiatives in Oregon, in Alaska, in the District of Columbia, we had nine States vote in 2016, and eight of them approved reforms. I am excited to watch this accelerated progress. In fact, I think what we have seen over the last 6 weeks is unprecedented. We are watching people in both parties be able to identify things they can get behind and move forward. We see survey research demonstrating that this is no longer a highly divisive partisan issue. The majority of Americans support legalizing adult use. Increasingly, there is evidence that a majority of Trump voters support adult use. Medical marijuana is like the Fourth of July. It is almost universally accepted, and I think the gentleman's district, in voting on medical marijuana in 2016 in Florida, was overwhelmingly supported. So now is the time for us to move forward. We have a bipartisan Cannabis Caucus, and I appreciate the gentleman participating in leading this. We have almost three dozen pieces of legislation. We had, this last week, a couple of things that I think were rather noteworthy. The former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who opposed our efforts for years, has now evolved on this issue, and he now has actually joined the advisory board of a firm in Massachusetts. Both of us are familiar with them, looking at the leadership in the industry. We have watched Donald Trump, in the last 10 days, sort of clarify what he said on the campaign trail in 2016, that the States ought to be free to do this. He is reaffirming that and undercutting the attempt by his Attorney General Sessions to cast a pall over the State legal efforts. We have watched the minority leader in the Senate, Mr. Schumer, come out supporting comprehensive legislation. I would note, for the record, it was very similar to what my colleague in the Senate, on the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Wyden and I introduced last year in a comprehensive fashion, but that is great. The more, the merrier. What we want to do this Congress is to be able to do some simple things. The legislation that we have worked on together to allow State legal marijuana enterprises to get rid of the pernicious 280E so they can deduct their business expenses, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and focus on that. We ought to eliminate the restrictions that prevent robust medical research on cannabis. The Federal Government interferes with the research. There is no longer any reason for that. And in working on this, literally, for decades, I have never met a single human being who thinks there is anything to be served by forcing State legal marijuana enterprises to be conducted on an all-cash basis. These are things that we can change, regardless of whether or not people favor full legalization. These are simple, commonsense steps that have bipartisan support, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on that and then as we take this to the people. We will be voting on it in Michigan, probably in Missouri. Looks like there will be a ballot measure in Utah. Other States are looking. I think the momentum is building. I can't say enough about how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman on these issues. I look forward to continuing that partnership so these simple, commonsense provisions that are actually supported by a majority of the people in the House and the Senate are allowed to be voted on. I hope that he can work his persuasive ways with the Republican leadership to eliminate those roadblocks and allow the House to work its will. America will be better for it. Americans will be freer, and there will be economic opportunity, health opportunities, and less destruction of lives with ill-conceived efforts to criminalize behavior of otherwise law-abiding adults. I thank the gentleman for his sponsorship of this conversation this evening, permitting me to be a part of it, and our partnership. I look forward to accelerating those efforts in the months ahead so that we can mark significant progress yet in this Congress, and next Congress, get it all taken care of.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his hard work with Chair Jenkins moving this forward. This is an example of--maybe people don't think it is earthshaking-- but being able to come together and deal with things that make a difference with the IRS, which is the largest voluntary tax compliance system in the world. It is very important. And I am pleased, with the reference to 13 hearings and a lot of the back and forth, being able to reach consensus. But let me say, I wish that those two people who led this effort had been empowered to do a deep dive into some of the dysfunctionality that has been imposed on the IRS. Since 2010, the IRS is dealing with more and more returns which are more and more complex, and my Republican friends have slashed the people who work on it. We haven't modernized the computer system which those of us who took our first computer programming in the 1970s, I think, would be equipped to work on. It is so outdated. We have cut the people who were involved with enforcement. Now, I would wish that everybody would voluntarily comply, but everybody doesn't. And as a result, those people who work on enforcement make about $6 for the taxpayer for every dollar we invest in their efforts. And, more importantly, it is a signal that everybody is going to be treated fairly. The people who cut corners, who forget, or who outright cheat are taking away money from the government and putting the burden on others who not only have to pick up the slack, but the people who cheat get an unfair advantage in how they do business. They are more profitable because they don't pay their full freight. That is stupid, unfair, and it is counterproductive. That is one of the reasons why we have a $450 billion tax gap--the difference between what is owed as a result of people's tax liability and what is paid. My friends on the other side of the aisle have been involved with punishing the IRS for things real and imagined. But who has really suffered has been the taxpayer, people who can't get their phone calls answered. The IRS doesn't have staff in customer service who can readily answer concerns that taxpayers have. I am outraged when I hear attorneys and accountants in my community say: Yeah, I had a client who had a legitimate claim and they would have gotten that $4,000 back, but I had to tell them that, because of the dysfunctionality and the underinvestment in the IRS, it would cost them more for me to fix it for them than they would get back. That is a scandal. We ought to make sure that we have a fully functioning IRS that meets the needs of the taxpayers, that gives them the answers that they need, that makes a very clear signal that everybody needs to fulfill their civic obligations to pay their taxes, and that businesses that cheat or forget are not going to get an unfair advantage over people who work hard to follow the rules. Our deficit would be $450 billion less if we did this properly.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because I wanted to make one other point. But I must confess that one of the other reasons that I am really deeply concerned about that now is that it wasn't just that we weren't able to do a deep dive on the causes of dysfunctionality and underinvestment in the IRS. It is no secret that one of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, was to be there to help us fulfill our responsibility on that committee dealing with the resources necessary to rebuild and renew America. It is no secret that America is falling apart while we are falling behind. We have a growing gap in our Highway Trust Fund that has lost 40 percent of its purchasing power. We are not able to meet our current commitments, let alone the commitments we have in the future. The Ways and Means Committee allowed the Superfund tax to expire. So now we have a Superfund to clean up toxic waste that has blighted communities across the country, but we no longer have a tax that pays for it. So that burden has been shifted to innocent parties and local government. I have been working with the last three chairs of our Ways and Means Committee, asking that we have some robust hearings on our responsibility for transportation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee deals with the authorization of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, but the Ways and Means Committee is responsible for funding it. A couple of weeks ago, there was a hearing in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on our job. They heard from witnesses from labor, from business, the U.S. Chamber, trucking associations--a wide range of people who came in and asked us to raise taxes on them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I really will wrap up. But we have had no hearing like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee had. They brought all of the witnesses in to talk about our job. The last three chairs of the Ways and Means Committee from my Republican friends, in 7 years and 3 months, have had exactly one witness on our responsibility to raise the revenue for transportation, not one hearing. We had 380 hearings. We had one 5-minute witness who talked about the need to meet our responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to go to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to hear our job? Isn't it about time that my Republican friends allowed us to have a week or two to listen to the wide array of people who want us to fulfill our responsibility to rebuild and renew America and to pay for it? It is past time for that hearing, and I hope we have it. And then we act on what people tell us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House Committee on Agriculture will be marking up the most important bill that almost no one pays attention to, rolled out with very little fanfare. And actually, we can kind of understand why it has been sort of played down a little bit. The draft farm bill makes it more difficult to get SNAP benefits, while weakening the meager limits for farm subsidies and while cutting investments in conservation and innovative programs which people care deeply about. The draft bill cuts billions from those SNAP benefits. It creates burdensome work requirements for caretakers of children over 6 and people between the ages of 50 and 59. Under this provision, people would have to find work or attend job training for at least 20 hours per week. The provisions won't do anything at all to address poverty. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that, even for those in the general population, securing a job within 3 months is virtually unattainable. There will be a spirited debate about whether we ought to reduce nutrition for low-income people, but there are a whole range of other items that need to have attention. The commodities programs that channel 94 percent of the subsidies in the farm bill to people who grow six commodities. This bill will exempt most corporate farms from payment limits and make it easier for large agriculture entities to call themselves family farms and get even more subsidies. It gets rid of payment limits for marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments and exempts partnerships, joint ventures, LLCs, and Subchapter S corporations from means testing, opening the loopholes wider. In the area of conservation, which matters deeply to Americans across the country and makes a big difference to farmers and ranchers in Oregon, this bill gets rid of the Conservation Stewardship Program, one of the largest conservation programs in the farm bill. It cuts the conservation title by $1 billion over 10 years and cuts funding for the working lands program by nearly $5 billion over 10 years, and it weakens the Endangered Species Act by allowing pesticides to be approved without considering the impact on endangered species. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important areas that needs our attention deals with local food and regional infrastructure to promote local sustainable agriculture. It effectively eliminates funding for farmers markets, value-added producer grants, and cost-sharing programs for organic certification by failing to reauthorize mandatory funding for these programs. Mr. Speaker, I spent the better part of 2\1/2\ years traveling Oregon after the last farm bill asking people what they wanted. And I will tell you, people in Oregon--farmers and ranchers, people who eat, sports people, people who are involved with food production and nutrition--this is not the approach that people in our community want, nor, frankly, by all available evidence, the vast majority of farmers and ranchers. They want to see reforms. They want to have a crop insurance program that isn't wasteful support for large commodity producers, but actually is available for people who grow food, specialty crops for nursery, and the wine industry. It ought to be helping beginning farmers and ranchers get a toehold. It ought to deal with the efforts to cut down food waste, to provide protection for animal welfare. Mr. Speaker, the draft proposal that has been released is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity for the committee. But I am hopeful that Congress, as this process works out, will step up and do its part to make it better, to focus on people who eat; people who care about clean air, clean water; people who want to protect animal welfare; people who want to have a vibrant, thriving local food scene; and to be able to provide food security for people who are at risk. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a hard look at this proposal and think about what a farm bill would look like for their community. I think they will find this bill falls far, far short.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is so poignant that Paul Ryan announces his retirement the same week that the Republicans bring to the floor the so-called balanced budget amendment, which signals surrender. Republicans can't budget responsibly. After the largest transfer of wealth in American history with their tax bill that was so flawed they could not even risk having a hearing on it, it was literally being written while we were in work session in the committee. They changed provisions by the hour in a mad scramble for votes and special-interest support. Ryan leaves as his legacy--a guy who on the Budget Committee railed about deficits, deficit spending, who tried slashing social spending-- he leaves as his legacy trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, and providing with this balanced budget amendment an excuse to slash spending on programs that matter most to Americans: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, even ultimately, it would threaten defense itself. The balanced budget amendment that the Republicans are going to bring to the floor is a classic example of bait and switch. Republicans have the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. If they wanted to actually produce a balanced budget, there is nothing stopping them from doing it now. But instead, they came forward with the omnibus bill that explodes spending and adds to the deficit even further. So what do they do now? They are offering this proposal as a fig leaf. The balanced budget amendment that they would freeze into the Constitution would force somebody 4 years, 5 years, 8 years in the future to do what Republicans either will not, cannot, or are afraid to do today. My senior Senator for years was Mark Hatfield, a principled Republican, and even though I am a Democrat, I was proud to help him in his last campaign when he was under some severe pressure. Mark Hatfield was principled. He chaired the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. When the Republicans brought forth the balanced budget amendment in 1995, it failed by one vote in the Senate. That one vote, and the only Republican vote against it, was Mark Hatfield because he refused to handcuff the United States into the future and be part of a charade, because he knew as chair of the Appropriations Committee, they controlled the budget strings and they could reduce spending if they wanted. He knew the irony that some of the very people who were touting the balanced budget amendment would turn to him asking for increased spending for their pet projects. Today, Republicans pretend themselves to be outraged over the Obama- era deficits which were incurred when we were trying to protect the economy from global collapse. All of the independent experts agree that that money was important. It was spent on infrastructure. It was spent on medical research. It was spent on providing a safety net for struggling families. What is the excuse today for a trillion dollar deficit? I mean, after all of that hard work, the economy has stabilized. It is not growing dramatically, but it is growing. The unemployment rate is low. What is the excuse for a trillion dollar deficit and massive tax giveaways? They are feeling the heat. Now, they are going to try and deflect responsibility for their trillion dollar deficits in a time of relative prosperity and low unemployment as a result of the hard work that the Republicans opposed. Republicans and Paul Ryan have made a shambles out of the Tax Code; a mockery out of tax fairness. They are not cutting spending or raising revenues. They just want to put that off for somebody in the future and pretend all of a sudden they are fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is going to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very poignant moment. Speaker Paul Ryan announces his retirement the same week that the Republicans bring to the floor the so-called balanced budget amendment, which signals a surrender, that Republicans admit they can't budget responsibly. After the largest transfer of wealth in our Nation's history with a tax bill that was so flawed they couldn't even risk having a hearing on it, they literally were writing the bill while we were in work session in a desperate scramble for votes and special-interest support. Ryan leaves as his legacy--a guy who, on the Budget Committee, railed against deficits and deficit spending, slashing social spending--he leaves as his legacy trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, year after year. They come forward with a balanced budget amendment. Wait a minute. If my friends wanted to balance the budget, they could do it. They control the White House, they control the Senate, they control the House. If they wanted to, there is nothing stopping them. But, instead, they came forward with an omnibus bill that explodes spending further and adds to the deficit. The balanced budget amendment would freeze into the Constitution a requirement that somebody else, 8 years from now, balance the budget. It is a classic bait-and-switch situation. What a legacy for Paul Ryan and the Republicans. They have made a shambles out of the Tax Code, they have made a mockery of tax fairness. They are not willing to make hard spending decisions today. They want to freeze something in the Constitution that would require somebody 7, 8, 10 years from now to do what they are afraid, unwilling, or unable to do today. It is a sham, bait-and-switch in the classic sense. I don't think the American public is going to stand for it and, certainly, no responsible Member of this House should vote for it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 2219, the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act of 2018 (Roll no. 130), which would increase the role of the financial industry in combating human trafficking, I would have voted ``aye.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4203, the Combat Online Predators Act (Roll no. 131), which would amend title 18 of United States Code with regard to stalking, I would have voted ``aye.'' Finally, had I been present for the vote on approving the Journal (Roll no. 132), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, I voted against H.R. 1625, the fiscal year (FY) 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Most troubling, the bill shortchanges our nation's young people by failing to adequately address the gun violence epidemic. The bill also dismisses the urgent need to provide greater clarity for Dreamers and takes a cruel and heartless approach to immigration that does not reflect our country's values. It does all of this while also failing to make tough decisions about our defense priorities. It maintains a $78 billion increase in defense spending above last year's levels without dealing with wasteful and unnecessary nuclear expenditures that will make our country less secure. That said, I credit our negotiators for funding key Democratic priorities and eliminating many Republican ``poison pill'' policy provisions. The omnibus included several key provisions that I support. The legislation includes additional funding to address our nation's crumbling infrastructure, including transit grant programs that I have long championed, and maintains critical funding for our public broadcasters. The bill also fully funds the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund, includes a $4.6 billion increase for our nation's affordable housing programs, and maintains full support for program to ensure the U.S. continues increasing access to water, sanitation, and hygiene for the world's poorest people. This is a tough job, and I commend the negotiators for their hard work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 796, the resolution providing for consideration of the fiscal year 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Rollcall No. 124), I would have voted ``no''. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4467, the Strengthening Aviation Security Act of 2017 (Rollcall No. 128), I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the presentation from my friend from Pennsylvania. I could not agree more that it is time for us to come forward with action. It was my honor this morning to address the Council of the Great City Schools, who are gathered in our Nation's Capitol--board members, superintendents, dealing with the challenges of education. And they are standing in solidarity with the young people who have raised their voices calling upon Congress to finally act. One of the things that is deeply troubling is that the Republican leadership refuses to allow a robust debate and action on the floor of the House. There are dozens of provisions that we can come together, produce majorities, enact legislation that will protect children's lives. Mr. Speaker, the Council of the Great City Schools had a resolution calling upon us to take action that I include in the Record. Resolution Council of the Great City Schools, Relating to School Shootings in the United States WHEREAS, the Bylaws of the Council of the Great City Schools assign the Board of Directors all powers and duties necessary to define the policies and positions of the organization and state that the Board may conduct acts in furtherance of those polices, except where the organization is prohibited from doing so by law or other governing documents; WHEREAS, there is a need for the nation's major city school systems to express their positions on school safety matters that affect its students and the children residing in its cities; WHEREAS, thousands of our students have publicly expressed concern for their safety and well-being and have indicated that policymakers should act immediately to protect them in school and beyond; WHEREAS, the leaders of the nation's major city public school systems respect the concerns of their students, and support the growing civic and social participation of high school students that was inspired by recent events; WHEREAS, since the school shooting in Columbine in 1999, there have been numerous other school shootings, including those in Red Lake (MN), Lancaster (PA), Blacksburg (VA), Chardon (OH), Cleveland (OH), Sandy Hook (CT), Broward County (FL), and many others that have taken scores of young lives; WHEREAS, too many of our young people are shot and killed on the streets of our major cities almost every day; WHEREAS, Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with a gun than people in other developed countries; WHEREAS, Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the world's population but own some 42 percent of the world's guns; WHEREAS, assault weapons have no place in society and other types of guns are too easily obtained; WHEREAS, teachers are not trained law enforcement officers, and should not be asked or incentivized to keep weapons accessible in their classrooms; WHEREAS, there is no reason based on any viable research to suggest that adding guns into a school setting or arming teachers would prevent these acts of violence; WHEREAS, schools across the country need considerable additional resources to plan for the possibility of such acts of violence, coordinate with law enforcement, and secure their buildings from intruders; WHEREAS, many schools lack the mental health counselors, psychologists, and social workers they need to identify and work with students showing warning signs for depression and violence; WHEREAS, the nation's data collection on gun violence and gun ownership is inadequate to monitor, understand, or prevent these events from happening; and WHEREAS, the multiple school shootings that the nation has witnessed over the years have complex causes requiring multiple solutions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools, its member districts, and staff stand with the students of Broward County Public Schools and the nation in demanding effective and comprehensive action from the federal government to protect schoolchildren; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to ban the sale, purchase, possession, and use of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition cartridges, except those needed by the military and law enforcement; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to require and strengthen universal background checks to possess any type of firearm; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the President of the United States to charge all agencies of the federal government with the task of reducing the number of gun-related injuries and deaths in America. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools is opposed to the arming of teachers to protect schools and children; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to extend the perimeter of Gun-Free School Zones; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to appropriate adequate new funds to allow school districts across the nation to plan and coordinate school security efforts with law enforcement officials and make other building alterations that may be necessary to protect students, teachers, and staff; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to appropriate adequate new funds to increase the numbers of counselors, mental health staff, psychologists, and social workers in our schools; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to appropriate adequate new funds for programs to educate students and their families on the dangers of firearms; and NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the Great City Schools calls on the Congress of the United States to require that states and the federal government collect whatever data necessary to track, monitor, understand, and prevent the extent of gun violence in America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we find that areas that have acted, in the aftermath of gun violence, to increase protections for gun safety actually makes a difference. It is a lie that gun safety provisions make no difference; that, somehow, people who are intent on slaughter will not behave according to the law, they won't obey it; it will have no impact. The evidence is that where actions are taken to reduce gun violence, to increase protections, to take guns away from people who shouldn't have them, gun violence is reduced. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, when this Congress was paralyzed, refused to allow a bipartisan legislation that would have increased universal background checks, for instance, the State of Connecticut acted. And over the years, they have enacted a series of provisions on gun safety that have resulted in reduced gun violence. Indeed, the States with the fewest gun safety protections, some no protections at all, have the highest rates of gun violence. We don't have to fall victim to that type of thinking. The Council of the Great City Schools pointed out in their resolution that Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with a gun than people in other developed countries. They reject the proposition that we have to be the only developed country that cannot protect our families from gun violence. They recognize that there is no place to arm teachers in response. There is no evidence that having teachers packing heat would make any difference at all. What it would do is add another layer of uncertainty, and more guns in schools increases the likelihood that they will be used. They categorically reject the arming of teachers, but say move forward, remove the ability of people to purchase high-capacity automatic weapons, tighten background checks, and make it easier to do research on gun violence--which this Congress has tried to make illegal. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will not have the Republican leadership continue to deny us an opportunity to fully debate the proposals that are circulating on a bipartisan basis that would make a difference dealing with background checks, dealing with taking guns away from people who shouldn't have them; making sure that we are reducing the access to some of the most destructive military weapons that have no place circulating in society, that children not old enough, young men not old enough to buy a beer can buy an AK-47. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I hope that people's hearts and minds will be touched by the eloquence that we have heard from these young people in Florida who have endured it, who have put pressure on the Florida Legislature to act. I hope we can do the same.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today Rep. Lee Zeldin and I are introducing a resolution that celebrates America's wineries and vineyards and recognizes the importance of distinctive American winegrowing regions, including those protected by American Viticultural Area (AVA) designations. I am particularly proud of Oregon's AVAs and the world-renown pinots they produce. Nationally, there are more than 10,000 wineries operating in all 50 states. These economic powerhouses generated, directly and indirectly, more than $219 billion for the United States economy last year and directly employ nearly 1 million Americans. Together, they make 10 percent of global wine production. American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) are designated wine-growing regions in the United States that have distinguishing features affecting viticulture, including climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of the American Viticulture Area designation system. AVA designations allow vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines and help them build and enhance the reputation and value of the wines they produce. They also help consumers identify wines they wish to purchase. For these reasons, we ask our colleagues to join us in recognizing the significant contributions to the economic and cultural life of the nation made by American wines and distinctive American wine-growing regions and acknowledging the value of American Viticultural Area designation in promoting American wines domestically and abroad. Together we should continue to support efforts to promote awareness of and appreciation for distinctive American winegrowing.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3183--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13683 James Madison Highway in Palmyra, Virginia, as the ``U.S. Navy Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby Post Office'', (Roll Call No. 92), I would have voted ``aye.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4406--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, as the ``Tuskegee Airman Post Office Building'', (Roll Call No. 93), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. This bill, I think, is an example of the politics and legislation that Ray Baum would be particularly proud of, characterizing his work as a policymaker and a policy adviser. I had a chance to work with Ray in his other hats: chairing the Public Utilities Commission, as a distinguished legislator and majority leader, and, of course, his role here in Congress. I appreciate the product we have before us today. I have enjoyed listening to people reaffirm areas that they are proud of, making a difference for people. I appreciate, in particular, the authorization of new spending to help broadcasters' expenses relating to spectrum reallocation. This is very important, especially for public broadcasting stations. But I want to raise one item of concern, and I hope the chairman and ranking member would work with us to look at the bill's study of spectrum for commercial uses dealing with the mid-band, or C-band, to consider public broadcasting. I fear that if we are thrust into competitive bidding with public broadcasting, they are likely to not be able to compete effectively. But it will affect millions of people across the country. I applaud the committee's bipartisanship and work with the Senate, but I hope that future consideration of the impact of C-band reallocation on public broadcasting would be something that the committee could look at to make sure that we are protecting those vital interests.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, when the Americans with Disabilities Act was first signed into law, President George H.W. Bush praised this bill for its assurance ``that people with disabilities [were] given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, and the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream.'' His words were true when the ADA passed, and they are true today. H.R. 620 would reverse decades of progress. It would pave the way for businesses to delay or completely avoid complying with the ADA, and shift the onus on people with disabilities to report noncompliance. If this bill were signed into law, it would effectively hold harmless places of public accommodation for willfully failing to comply with the ADA. This legislation purports to curb ``drive-by'' lawsuits, which can be a legitimate problem, but these suits have arisen predominantly in states that provide for recovery of money damages in their state laws. The federal ADA does not provide for damages, only injunctive relief and attorney's fees. This would be a step backwards. We have a responsibility to protect these safeguards and ensure that people with disabilities are provided accessible accommodations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our nation's food system is in a crisis right now, and it goes beyond the state of the farm economy. Between 2016 and 2017, it's estimated that the United States lost one-third of its honey bee colonies. Over the past decade, documented incidents of honey bee colony collapse disorder and other forms of excess bee mortality have been at a record high. Some beekeepers reported repeatedly losing 100 percent of their operations. While this may not sound like a crisis to some, these insects play a critical role in pollinating a number of our nation's crops. Honey bees and native bees jointly provide U.S. agriculture an estimated $18 to $27 billion in pollination service annually. One of every three bites of food we eat is from a crop pollinated by bees. This dramatic decline threatens these crops, and thousands of scientific studies have implicated neonicotinoid pesticides, or neonics, as key contributors to this trend. That's why today I am proud to reintroduce the Saving America's Pollinators Act. This bill would protect the health of honey bees and other critical pollinators and suspend the use of bee-toxic neonics. It also requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete a thorough assessment and ensure that any use of these insecticides does not cause unreasonable and adverse effects on pollinators. The health of our food system depends on the health of our pollinators, and the EPA has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me and pass this legislation so that we can save our pollinators. The future of our food depends on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on H.R. 4533--To designate the health care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Lexington VA Health Care System'' and to make certain other designations, (rollcall No. 70), I would have voted ``aye.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4979--To extend the Generalized System of Preference and to make technical changes to the competitive need limitations provision of the program (rollcall No. 71), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, with all that is going on in Washington, D.C., these days, it is really hard to keep up with some things that are amazingly consequential. One item that is flying below the radar screen is the new Nuclear Posture Review from the Trump administration. They are talking about expanding our nuclear arsenal, embarking us on a path of spending $1.2 trillion. Not only do we have more than we need already that we can't afford to use and pay for; we are talking about other elements here that are disturbing: developing new destabilizing nuclear weapons; being able to use nuclear weapons in nonnuclear situations, for example, responding to cyber attacks when you might not even know who did it. We still have all these land based ballistic missiles in silos on hair-trigger alert. We just saw the vulnerability there in Hawaii with the recent mistaken threat of an attack send a whole state into panic. We need to take a hard look at how to do this right before it is too late.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 714 (Roll Call No. 47), I would have voted no. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 714, the rule providing for the consideration of the House amendment to Senate amendment to H.R. 695, the Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (Roll Call No. 48), I would have voted no. Had I been present for the vote on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an Amendment to H.R. 695, the Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (Roll Call No. 49), I would have voted no. I voted against a nearly identical defense appropriations bill in July--and all the same issues remain. Finally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4292, the Financial Institution Living Will Improvement Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 50), I would have voted aye.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on S. 534, Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act (Roll Call No. 45), I would have voted aye. This bill would require authorization to interact with minor amateur athletes to report any suspected incidents of child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the sport's governing body. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 1457 (Roll Call No. 682), I would have voted aye. This bill would allow banks and other financial institutions nationwide to use an individual's state-issued driver's license or personal identification card to verify the individual's identity when using a mobile device to initiate mobile banking or other online service.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the trial of Larry Nassar and the testimonies of more than 150 brave women have illuminated many injustices. One of the most critical is that our institutions are fundamentally failing to protect young women and men against predators. Officials at USA Gymnastics, Michigan State University, and the U.S. Olympics committee knew about multiple allegations against Nassar. They knew for years, and they did nothing to reprimand the perpetrator or prevent it from happening again to other young athletes. This bill, however, does not go far enough. Changes to the governance of these bodies going forward is clearly insufficient to guard the rights of those victims who have already been harmed. The burden should not rest solely on those victims brave enough to advance their claim in a court of law. The past several months in particular have brought to light the systemic problem of sexual harassment and assault. From Larry Nassar, to Harvey Weinstein, to powerful, elected officials, we've allowed sexual predators and harassers to escape scrutiny and consequences for their actions for far too long. This is unacceptable and it's our responsibility to act. We must continue to not only unmask these individuals and their enablers and bring them to justice, but also work tirelessly to prevent these assaults from happening in the first place. And to the countless survivors of sexual assault and harassment who so boldly continue to share their stories--I hear you, I believe you, and I thank you for your courage.