Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for us to have this discussion. It has been fun working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) on this notion of direct primary care. It is a simple notion that runs athwart IRS regulations. I still don't fully understand why these should be classified as ``health plan'' rather than ``payment for service.'' But, nonetheless, we were able to work together on a bipartisan basis to move this forward. It is not expensive. The score is less than $2 billion out of $90 billion that we are tossing around here, and I personally believe that it will result in substantial savings in order to provide more efficient coverage. But I must say that I am a little troubled by the continuing assault on what we are doing with the fiscal future of this country. We just saw the latest reports that because of what my Republican friends have done with the budget and with the tax bill, we have doubled the deficit this year. It is doubled. Now, there were complaints from my friend from Kansas about deficit spending when President Obama took office. Remember, he was only President for one-third of that month and lost 700,000 jobs. The economy was in free fall. Absolutely we took steps: cutting taxes and moving in areas to try and strengthen parts of the economy that was posing huge problems for people across the board. And this was broadly supported by people in business. Economic experts actually agree that probably we didn't do enough, and that slowed the economic recovery. But the economy has recovered. We have seen 9 consecutive years of private sector job growth. That is what Trump inherited: over 7 years of job growth. The economy was strong. It wasn't in free fall. Yet, in that strong position, we are doubling the deficit this year. We are looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. And we just had the President announce that he wants to spend $12 billion more, not because we are in economic free fall, but because his ruinous trade policies have resulted in losses to the farming sector. They are going to provide extra government bailout, not because farmers want it, but because they are being injured by these ruinous trade policies. There was a time when most of my Republican friends would rise up in opposition. It is certain that if these were offered by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, they would be screaming at the top of their lungs. Most of them are strangely silent now, but it is another $12 billion to try to fix a problem that Trump has created by starting trade wars with our friends, trying to punish China, and, in fact, we are punishing our allies. And somehow auto imports are national security. This is embarrassing that we are in this situation. But it is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. We are weakening ourselves economically, while we pick fights with our allies, like Canada and the European Union. Mr. Speaker, on top of all of this, we are going to advance legislation today that have some nuggets of positive things. I have worked with my colleagues on some of them. There are important advances, but they are coming at a price of $90 billion added to the deficit, without even an attempt to work with us to offset. I think we could have offset the direct primary care piece that we are talking about here. It is relatively small potatoes compared to $90 billion, and compared to $12 billion for tariff relief for a trade war we didn't need. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the conversation about some of these items. I think it is important to spotlight them. But I am hopeful that we are able to return to fiscal stability, not having bailouts for farmers that they don't want and wouldn't need if we had a rational tariff policy. I am hopeful that we are not going to have a parade of other things that undermine the Affordable Care Act and add unnecessary costs to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote yesterday on H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act (Roll no. 366), I would have voted ``aye.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4881, the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act (Roll no. 367), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it seems every morning we are greeted by another outrage from the Trump administration. Today, we find that the Department of the Interior deliberately manipulated the information surrounding the decision to amend the boundaries of national monuments. They withheld information about the benefits of the monument designation, benefits for Native Americans, for wildlife, for the local economy, and for the environment. The only way we found out about this manipulation is because they inadvertently disclosed the entire memorandum, exposed for everybody to see how they blatantly manipulated the process. But this is just another example. This last week, we have seen attacks on our long-time friends and allies in Europe, undermining the NATO alliance, questioning the integrity of our American intelligence service, and assaulting American business and consumers with this ill-advised trade war and the tariffs, which are just taxes on American families. This is, in part, due to the fact that we are not getting any pushback on these outrages from most Republicans in Congress, not standing up to Trump for America and for our values. It appears that most of my Republican friends are held hostage to the most extreme elements in their districts. They are given enhanced influence because of the practice of partisan gerrymandering, drawing boundaries to enhance the power of the Republican majority, so you only have to worry about voters in the primary. I have long supported independent commissions to draw these boundaries, have proposed legislation federally. Although there appears to be little appetite in Congress, luckily, people out in the States are taking matters into their own hands. We are watching citizen initiatives in Michigan, in Utah, and in Colorado. Voters, this year, will have a chance to vote on fair and honest redistricting if the U.S. Chamber and the Republican Party are not able to block it from being voted on, as they are trying to do in Michigan. When voters, again, pick the politicians instead of politicians picking the voters, it is much more likely that Congress will do its job. Mr. Speaker, until we get fair districts, we will have to rely on renewed, energized voter engagement to elect a Congress that will do its job. The good news is that the evidence all across America is that people are responding to a new generation of political leadership. They are getting involved in unprecedented numbers--more voters, more activism. They are going to elect, as leaders, new Members who will provide the accountability to hold in check this reckless administration. It is too bad it looks like we will have to wait for the election for the next Congress to do its job.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I am pleased to follow my friend from California (Mr. Royce). This is troubling for me, his reference here to 38 extensions without reform. I have been working on this for 20 years. This is the 41st time, and we had one back in 2004 with my friend, Doug Bereuter, where we had some small steps, but they were anticipatory of being able to make greater reforms. I am vexed that we continue to move forward and dodge some hard facts. We are subsidizing too much for people who grow complacent. I am concerned about affordability. There are things we can do to deal with affordability, but that doesn't mean to have massive subsidization for people who don't need it and, in fact, encourage people to be in harm's way and, in fact, after they are flooded out, to go back, putting them in harm's way again. There are simple, commonsense steps we can take. There were things that Mr. Royce and I had that are sort of the lowest common denominator. I am deeply troubled that we are going to do this again without dealing with the problems. I just want to say that it is not just financial hardship and it is not just wasting of money. Our failure to reform the Flood Insurance Program puts people at risk. Every one of these massive events shows that people will go back, trying to deal with a family member; they are dealing with their business, or they are dealing with a pet. People die because we fail to take steps to reform and make it work right. I appreciate the ranking member, the chair, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Royce. There is a path forward. This bill is not the path forward. I don't want it to lapse. I don't want disruption. But it is hard for me to sit here and vote ``yes'' for something that doesn't do the minimum. We don't do anybody any favors along this path.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon has been on the cutting edge of advancing LGBTQ rights, or ``gay rights'' as they were known over 40 years ago. On Sunday, July 8, we lost one of the early pioneers in Oregon and nationally--Gerald K. Weller. Jerry encouraged others to follow his example as an articulate leader, open about his sexual orientation and the critical nature of the civil rights movement he helped found. As a gay man, he provided many with their first experience of knowing an out and proud gay person. Jerry was the executive director of Portland Town Council, a pioneering LGBTQ advocacy organization in Oregon, and went on to leadership on the national level in Washington, D.C. for what would become the Human Rights Campaign Fund. He led a major health clinic in Chicago in the midst of the AIDS epidemic. With his return to Oregon, he worked for several state agencies as a committed advocate for gay rights. Early in my career, I valued Jerry's leadership, advice, support, and advocacy. He truly made his mark as one of the unsung heroes of the LGBTQ civil rights movement as he improved the lives of countless Oregonians and advanced understanding for many more. I salute his impact on Oregon and the nation and mourn his loss.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution encapsulates what is wrong with the Republican management of this Congress. It is a cartoon that doesn't deal with the underlying issues. They conjure up an imaginary carbon tax when there are real proposals to price carbon before committees in Congress now. Instead of engaging in fantasy, we could have a debate about real legislation that would satisfy their answers and be able to deal with what our responsibilities are in the future. What we are talking about today encapsulates the failure of Republican leadership in this Congress. They can't deal with immigration. They can't deal meaningfully with climate change and carbon pollution. Instead, we are dealing with empty gestures. Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest we reject this rule and get down to business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program shortchanges taxpayers and those who pay flood insurance premiums, while placing communities and families at risk. For more than 20 years, I have worked to reform the program, and I am pleased that a small piece of our broader reform effort--the Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act--has passed the House of Representatives. The flood insurance program is currently more than $20 billion in debt. This figure keeps rising as we see more devastating hurricanes and extreme weather events across our country. Part of the runaway cost of the program is due to the insuring of properties that have flooded repeatedly. In fact, a quarter of all claims paid by the flood insurance program are for repeatedly flooded properties, even though they make up less than two percent of properties covered by the program. For the safety of our communities and fiscal security of the country, Congress must do more to help those trapped in flood-prone areas move to safer land. The Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act tasks the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with studying the efficacy of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) buyout programs for properties at high risk of flooding and those that are repeatedly flooded. While this bill is just a small step, if we invest in our communities before disasters occur, we will save money, save property, and most importantly, save lives. My hope is that Congress can actually implement the recommendations of this study in an upcoming reauthorization, saving taxpayer dollars and providing help to those stuck in repeatedly flooded properties.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on the House Amendment to S. 488, the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018 (Roll No. 333), I would have voted ``aye.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3030, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act of 2018 (Roll No. 334), I would have voted ``aye.'' Finally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4989, the Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act (Roll No. 335), I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is just hard to keep track of the daily outrages: the President is not just insulting, but attacking allies like Canada on national security grounds; a tariff war; reckless and inaccurate attacks on NATO and our allies, the bedrock of stability in Europe; the President of the United States cozies up to one of the worst people on the face of the planet. Kim Jong-un, the dictator of North Korea, has imprisoned over 100,000 of his people in concentration camps, starved millions more, murdered members of his own family and is held up as some sort of exemplar by Trump. Trump says he likes the way his people pay attention to him. Well, maybe because if they don't, they get killed or sentenced to a concentration camp. This notion that we are forcibly separating children from families at the border, where the family simply is looking for asylum, inflicting probably permanent damage on these children; and, of course, the countless environmental attacks and the activities of corrupt cronies who have been put in positions of authority. Last week we witnessed one of the most despicable acts of this disturbing administration: The United States launched a global attack on breastfeeding--yes, breastfeeding. Think about it for a moment. Mother's milk is the most nutritious way to feed a baby. It contains antibodies that provide it with health protections as a baby and throughout its life. There was an innocuous resolution that was being advanced before one of the United Nations affiliates, the World Health Assembly, to promote breastfeeding. This is a serious problem in developing countries. Global giants that sell baby formula have been touting this as a healthier, more convenient alternative. Recent studies show that less than 40 percent of poor women in developing countries are breastfeeding. The use of infant formula in these poor countries not only is inferior, not only does it lack the long-term health benefits, and is it not a cheaper alternative for low-income people. Actually, in many of these countries, mixing formula with dirty water poses a direct threat immediately to the health of the child. Ecuador, a member of this assembly, was prepared to introduce a routine resolution promoting breastfeeding. Then this administration sprang into action, pressuring Ecuador--allegedly, with retaliation in the trade sector--to not offer the resolution. Ultimately, the bullying was successful; the resolution was not advanced by Ecuador. Although, irony of ironies, it was Russia that stepped up and moved forward with the resolution, which was ultimately adopted with minor changes. What does it say about America and this administration that it would be doing the bidding of giant international corporations, promoting a practice that actually undermines health in many poor people? Just having a resolution promoting the benefits of breastfeeding was threatening to their business and to this administration. We have seen a lot of disturbing and shameful acts since Trump became President, but it is hard to imagine something worse than what was on display last week. It is time for my Republican colleagues to join us, expressing outrage about behaviors like this. We are better people, and we ought to demonstrate it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 970, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a recent article in The New York Times about the Koch brothers and its stealth campaign to try to attack mass transit projects around the country. It was disturbing on several levels. First and foremost, it is misguided in terms of the economic impact. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is $4 of economic activity generated for every $1 that is invested in transit. It increases business sales, and it results in higher real estate values and jobs created. It is important to note that, right now, we have a road system that is heavily subsidized by the general fund. The road user charge has long since failed to pay for it. We have had to transfer $140 billion just to keep the failing Surface Transportation Program afloat. The Koch brothers argue, through their organization, that American cities really don't have the population density to support mass transit systems. That is false. It is clear that there are some very dense systems serving Chicago and New York, but there are very successful programs in Phoenix and Houston with much lower density that are providing essential services. It is important to remember who gets that service, because transit is much less expensive for men and women to be able to have access to jobs and employment. The average vehicle costs almost $10,000 a year to operate. In most families, it is the number two item in the family budget after housing. For many poor people, transportation is actually ahead of housing. Transit provides access to jobs, so that people don't have to spend 42 hours a year trapped in traffic behind the wheel of a vehicle, as happens on average. The notion that somehow we are going to be forced to look at a lack of density, well, communities across the country in the metropolitan areas are getting more and more dense. They are attracting young people, retired people, and more economic activity in the 49 largest metropolitan areas around the country. In those areas, transit is the most cost effective and environmentally sensitive way of providing that service, to say nothing of the fact that we kill almost 40,000 people a year on our roadways. Transit is amazingly safe by comparison. One of the most disingenuous arguments is that transportation programs for mass transit are bad because they promote gentrification of our cities. Look at that argument for a moment. One of the things that is happening in cities across the country is that there is a new urban renaissance. Young millennials are moving back to the cities. Those are the engines of the economy. Aging baby boomers are finding it much more attractive to move into those urban cores than to be isolated out in the suburbs with a large-lot subdivision and forcing people to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk. Those urban areas are our future. Not everybody is going to do it, but the majority of people are. We ought to be investing in transportation systems for our future, not undermining them by limiting investments to transportation of the past. We are in the process of a rapid revolution in transportation technology and people's approaches. More and more young people, actually, are choosing not to buy a car, which sits idle about 22\1/2\ hours a day and is very expensive. They are instead choosing transit, ride-share, bike-share, and being able to have transportation when they need it--Lyft and Uber--without having an anchor of an individual car bearing down on them. Frankly, gentrification is a function of how we plan and develop our cities. That ought to be an invitation to think about how to do it better, as many cities are doing now, not to undermine progress by assaulting transit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I voted in support of H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act. This was a difficult decision. I voted for this bill because I strongly support the recovery of wild native fish populations in the Columbia River and its tributaries. There is an immediate, serious risk to native steelhead, among other fish, that this bill seeks to reduce. I, however, do not view this bill as a wise long-term strategy for salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia River Basin. While the detrimental impacts of sea lions need to be addressed, human-caused factors are the primary driver in the declining salmon and steelhead populations. Instead of focusing on sea lions--another protected species with an important role in our ecosystem--let's actually confront the damage that we ourselves have caused. Pitting one treasured species against another does nothing to address the damage and obstacles that humans have forced upon this vital Pacific Northwest ecosystem. This will not be easy. The impediments are many--the impacts from dams, habitat degradation, unprecedented climate disruption, and more. Regional partners have been working for years to address these issues, and thankfully our native fish are strikingly resilient. But we must do much, much more. Let's have a real conversation about the actual causes of salmon and steelhead decline and what we can do to meaningfully contribute to their recovery. While this bill may reduce some short-term stressors, it is not a solution. Salmon and steelhead--iconic species in the Pacific Northwest--will only recover if we come together to face the facts and tackle the real issues that are our legacy--and our responsibility.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we recover from the chaos emanating from the White House and the tweeter-in-chief last week, it is important to recognize children are not invaders. Children must not be used as political pawns for reckless immigration enforcement policy. I thank Justin Amash for being a lonely, but principled Republican voice, reminding your colleagues, even if Donald Trump doesn't recognize the Fifth Amendment, that under the Constitution, nobody is denied of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There are over 300 other Republicans in the House and Senate, and I hope America hears from them. And Democrats should welcome a contest of ideas and a contest at the ballot box, not shouting at restaurants. It is important that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture. There is a reason that tens of thousands of people have come to the southern border: the chaos and violence in parts of Mexico, especially Central America, and the violence especially strong in the triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The United States is not an entirely innocent bystander there. We have supported repressive dictators in those countries in the 1980s, and we have been meddling in their affairs for generations. It is the lucrative American drug market that has fueled the drug trade and gang activity. Part of our failed drug policies have destabilized the lives of millions. The immense profits from the American drug trade drives that activity to the borders, corrupts governments, and has created a situation where we cannot even keep drugs and cell phones out of American prisons. What is the answer? I would suggest that it is not to deny people fearing for their lives a right to prove their case as refugees seeking asylum. The answer is not to hold children hostages in a macabre, hateful drama that is a shame on all Americans. The answer is not to forcibly take children out of the arms of their mother, and then lose them in the system. I mean, wait a minute. If the Postal Service and UPS can tell you where the sweat socks and the razors that you ordered a week ago are in the system, why can't we tell parents where their most precious possession, their children, are--and the notion that some are walking away from detention facilities. The Trump administration is talking about reorganizing essential government departments. Maybe if they want to do that, they ought to start with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They ought to start with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services, all of the agencies that are a part of this embarrassing spectacle, to figure out how to do it right, how to do it humanely, in an open and transparent fashion, and stop the notion that somehow there will be zero tolerance; that we will separate children from their families at the borders; and we will criminalize people who are seeking asylum. Let's stop this malignant policy. Let's get children back to their parents. Let's elevate the discourse respectfully, but forcefully battle ideas and support the vulnerable. It is not merely a question of justice for immigrant children, but of justice and integrity of all Americans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 5687--the SOUND Disposal and Packaging Act (Roll Call No. 269), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill would require the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve packaging and disposal methods for certain drugs. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 5676--the SENIOR Communities Protection Act of 2018 (Roll Call No. 270), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill would authorize Medicare prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans to suspend payments to pharmacies pending investigations of credible allegations of fraud.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Pallone's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I respect his efforts, and I respect a number of his concerns. But I do think that the work that we have done with Mr. Mullin, with the committee, and I appreciate the subcommittee's extra efforts to work through these elements, listen to people's objections, and to do it right. There has been no argument that this provision has cost lives. The failure in emergency rooms, other circumstances, for people to not be able to get the full picture of a patient's condition ends up sometimes with tragic consequences. We have yet to hear any reason why we shouldn't coordinate. Now, I appreciate concerns about patient privacy, but as Dr. Burgess and my friend from Oklahoma point out, we are strengthening provisions under this bill for disclosure. People don't want to stigmatize those with substance abuse, we agree. But having a separate system that people have to go through just for substance abuse implies a stigma. People will think there is something wrong with these people. You don't do this for AIDS anymore. This harmonizes with all the other HIPAA provisions. Candidly, forcing people to go through yet another step probably raises questions about the validity of disclosure, raising questions in the minds of those who go through that. Mr. Speaker, we have made, I think, tremendous progress dealing with stigma, dealing with patient protection, what we have done for mental health, which has devastating consequences in some cases if people's records were revealed. Think what has happened with HIV/AIDS. There was a time when that would end up with people not just having a stigma but at risk of losing their jobs, being ostracized. These are the same provisions in this bill that are there for HIV/ AIDS or mental health, for everything under HIPAA. I really do think that we take a step back, understanding that having separate authorizations complicates the coordination and integration of treatment. Oftentimes, behavioral health information doesn't arrive in an orderly fashion. It is another step of complication that could have tragic consequences. In fact, the subcommittee's record demonstrates that. There have been examples where people have died because the medical providers did not have the full picture of the patient. This legislation will fix it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her focusing on this. I agree wholeheartedly; we don't need to go down this path again. The Republican Congress in 2005 looked at a similar proposal and eliminated it from a spending bill. The notion that we have low-yield weapons that are going to enable us to advance forward from the submarine launch is troubling. This actually will make the submarine exposed for being able to know where it is and attack it. And the ``low-yield'' terminology is a little disquieting. Think of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. These are amazingly destructive. Being able to have gradations of response and buy into that notion I think is deeply troubling and is, in fact, destabilizing. The $1.6 trillion episode that we are embarked upon in terms of modernization and enhancement could be well spent in other ways, especially not in this direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, shooting swimming caribou from a motorboat, bear baiting, dogs for black bears, using artificial light, shooting wolf pups and bear cubs in their dens are outrageous practices that were banned under a 2015 rule from the Obama administration, which the Trump administration has now announced that it seeks to reverse. This is absolutely outrageous. Our national parks and reserves have always had special status, and the Trump administration wants to roll that back, essentially making them into game parks. It is important for people to reflect on what this means. Think about what goes on in Yosemite National Park or Yellowstone National Park. Would that experience be enriched by having these extreme hunting tactics to eliminate some of the top-line predators to be able to have more things to hunt? Absolutely not. Three hundred million people a year visit these national parks, and the draw is the wildlife. National parks without animals is just scenery. Mr. Speaker, it is important that people focus on why this is such an outrageous policy. These are low-density animals with low reproductive rates. In Alaska, there is no conflict with livestock. They have very little interaction with people, other than the people who want to see them. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong on three fundamental levels. First of all, it is just wrong. All animals suffer, and hunting them down with these extreme methods is cruel and is repugnant to virtually all Americans. It is wrong ecologically. For millions of years, we have seen these animals co-exist, and the national parks--like Yosemite or what is happening in Alaska--are some of the few places where that ecological balance continues to work. Human beings cannot improve upon it; they can only damage that delicate balance. It is also wrong economically. The economic impact for gateway communities, for these 300 million tourists, is profound. If we are going to turn these national treasures simply into game parks, hunting preserves, they are going to lose their allure, the economic impact will be dramatically diminished, as well as upsetting the ecological balance, and the fact that it is morally wrong. What we should be doing, in this Congress, is raising our voices in outrage over the latest attempt by the Trump administration to roll back sensible, commonly supported protections. And while we are at it, not just raising our voices, but maybe taking some action on the floor of this House on animal protection. We have the animal cruelty PACT Act that has 282 cosponsors, which could be on the floor Monday. The House Republican leadership has refused to act on the PACE Act, the Parity in Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act, which just got 359 votes on the floor of the House with an amendment. Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act, 246 cosponsors. The Pet and Women Safety Act, 248 cosponsors. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act, 238 cosponsors. The Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers, providing service animals for our veterans, has a majority of sponsors in the House of Representatives. Why can't the Republican leadership allow us to debate and pass these provisions to improve animal welfare and add our voices to the latest outrage of the Trump administration in its assault on our animal friends?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved for 20 years to try and stop the barbaric practice of animal fighting, dogfighting, cockfighting, and slowly but surely, we have made the point under Federal law. It is a felony crime: to sponsor; exhibit an animal in a fighting venue; to buy, sell, deliver, possess, train animals; or to bring a minor to an animal fight. But this has been long and slow and painful. And I violently disagree with the notion that we should have one set of rules. It is already a felony in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. We shouldn't have one set of rules for some territories, and for the rest of the States. At core, this is a barbaric, inhumane practice. The animals are drugged to make them more ferocious. In cockfighting, they are equipped with metal spurs to slash each other--fighting to the death. I am sorry, this Congress has rejected the notion that this is culturally specific. Animal cruelty has no place in any territory, in any State, in any venue, by any race or ethnic group or cultural tradition. We have gone past that. We heard those arguments in some States when we were fighting to achieve these protections. I strongly urge that we continue this 20-year fight to protect animals and protect people from being involved with this horrific activity, and close what is, in fact, a loophole. We should have no separate rules for States, territories, or anywhere under our jurisdiction. The Roskam-Blumenauer amendment will fix this and finish a journey that we started 20 years ago. But sadly, because some people think it is acceptable, we are still going to have to fight this battle in the illegal sector as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the debate this week in Congress centers largely around the farm bill, the most important bill that most people pay little or no attention to. Currently, there is a mad scramble for votes for a flawed bill from a fractured Republican caucus. Now, we are going to have some minor discussions on the floor. There are some amendments that will be bounced back and forth, but they are basically beside the point, not the big-picture issues that need to be debated. There are fatal flaws. First and foremost, virtually everyone on our side of the aisle is adamantly opposed to the efforts to cut nutrition funding through SNAP, food stamps, rather than expanding opportunities to nutrition and healthy food. For example, they are cutting farmers market funding, for heaven's sake, projects that are popular across the country and connect consumers directly with farmers for fresh, healthy food. This is all while they are proposing to essentially hound people off food stamps with unnecessary restrictions for employment. The vast majority of people are already employed or have difficulty being employed or there aren't jobs available. They are going to have a job training program, about $45 per person, which anybody who works in this field will acknowledge that the bureaucracy and the trouble will be more than it is worth in terms of a benefit to people. Essentially, they will hound people off food stamps. This is at the same time where they are expanding subsidies for wealthy farming interests and expanding the ability to get those subsidies to people who aren't actively involved with farming. This bill is going to send subsidy checks to New York City and Chicago and San Francisco, people who are cousins and nieces and nephews, not actively farming. The second major problem with this bill is it attacks conservation funding, cutting a billion dollars from essential services, cutbacks with the Conservation Stewardship Program, $5 billion cut out of the Working Lands Project, and not strengthening the ability of environmental programs to produce results. There is no requirement that we have high-quality environmental outcomes. In fact, the EQIP Program has a wide variety of things that we pay farmers to do that actually don't enhance the environment. We are paying farmers for the cost of doing business: fencing, hog lagoons. That is decidedly the wrong step to take. The worst aspect that is not getting the attention it deserves is the so-called King amendment, the Protect Interstate Commerce Act, which would prevent State or local governments from regulating an agricultural product except to the extent it is already regulated by Federal law or the producing State. Think about that for a moment. States are moving to deal with the opioid crisis, and they would be prevented from having drug prohibitions that go beyond what the Federal Government does or other States. Food packaging regulations. Many States are concerned about BPA-free container requirements for baby food: prohibited. Fishing regulations. In my State, and I suspect in many others, people are serious about being able to protect fisheries, commercial and recreational, but under this bill, they would be prohibited if another State has looser requirements. My colleague from Seattle might have some concerns in her State about protecting the clamming operations, but some State like Nebraska that doesn't have them could come in and not observe those limits. The notion that we won't have invasive pest protections that are tailored to what our States want, product transportation laws, secure containers for animal carcasses and grease--lowest common denominator. Licensing and permitting of commercial enterprises, for example, professional licensing and pet sellers; you could not prohibit a convicted animal abuser from having a license to traffic animals if the other State doesn't have it. These are horrific provisions trampling on States' rights, consumer protection, environmental protection, agricultural protection. This bill should be rejected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that there are lots of companies that use sugar and are behemoths. I represent a number of them in Portland, Oregon, that are confectioners, candy makers, and bakers who are concerned about this. In terms of the benefit, think about the 13 mega processors that the sugar program forces manufacturers to pay far more than they need. This is a $3 billion burden on the taxpayer. We have an opportunity here to deal with one other area. If we start getting the pricing right, there is another hidden tax in terms of the sugar system that we have, and that has been on the Florida Everglades. We have a $7.5 billion down payment because of the damage that has been inflicted on the Everglades by the massive cane sugar operation that has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, a cost that taxpayers will be footing and environmental costs to go with the burden on sugar-using industries. I strongly urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from California talk about his deep concerns and reservations about the farm bill that is slowly grinding its way, perhaps, toward the floor being considered today by the Rules Committee. While we have somewhat different perspectives and different districts, we are united in the fact that this farm bill does not remotely reflect the needs of the American public. One of the problems is that we fail to address the disparate array of subsidies under the farm bill, benefiting a few States, a few districts, a few types of farming operations, and ignoring the rest. The famous nutrition professor, Marion Nestle, of NYU has written a great essay, ``The Farm Bill Drove Me Insane,'' dealing with her attempts to try to understand and rationalize it. One of the most memorable portions is how she describes what an American diet would look like if it was based on the way that our farm bill subsidies are arrayed. The diet would consist of a giant corn fritter because 78 percent of the farm bill resources goes to the production of industrial corn and soy, not fruits and vegetables, which would be a tiny microscopic part of that plate. There would be a little hamburger patty because that is less than 5 percent, and there would be a little cup of milk. And she points out that that meal, based on the farm bill allocation, would be accompanied by a giant napkin because 13 percent of the farm bill is allocated to cotton subsidies. The farm bill shortchanges the vast majority of American farmers and ranchers, who are not heavily subsidized, who produce food--the fruits, vegetables, and orchard, products that deal with nurseries. The majority of States and the majority of farmers and ranchers are shut out. There is an area of crop insurance subsidy. I will tell you, I was stunned when I read the Statement of Administration Policy because they are concerned with two areas, one dealing with a necessary subsidy for people with nutrition assistance. They are afraid that a few poor people would have access to lower cost food through the Food Stamp program. They want to crank that down, limit it, and force people to work. Well, if you look at the farm bill that they are supporting, they are doing nothing to encourage wealthy farming interests to rely less on subsidization. They are concerned about expanding the subsidizes for people under the SNAP program. At the same time, we are given a farm bill that explodes the limits on the amount of subsidy that can flow to wealthy farming and ranching interests, and it expands the subsidy so that nieces and nephews and cousins are eligible. People who aren't working on the ranch are somehow eligible for Federal largesse, but they would deny hungry people, or near hungry people, low-income people, that same sort of benefit. There are also concerns that they want to crank down on the environmental programs; they want to make them more productive. Yet this farm bill ignores the fact that we right now do not have enough money for the conservation programs to help farmers and ranchers who want to improve the environment. Only one in four grants gets funded, some of them swallowed up by big industrial agricultural interests that could afford to take care of their own environmental problems. But more telling is that they allow payment for things that don't even improve the environment. Why allow large agribusiness to compete for scarce environmental funding for things like hog lagoons and fences. That is the cost of doing business. That doesn't improve the environment. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation that would correct this in terms of cutting down, capping, and containing unnecessary subsidies; reducing overly generous crop insurance; and making conservation programs performance driven. I hope the day will come when we might be able to debate something like that on the floor of the House.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing us to join in this conversation, and I strongly identify with what the Representative from the other Portland just said. In fact, North Haven, I am reflecting right now that, in 3 short months, during the summer recess, I plan on sitting on a deck looking out at North Haven and enjoying looking for those eagles that have been rescued and are very much in evidence in her beautiful part of the country. She is not just an advocate for the environment and for agriculture; she is a practitioner. And I have had an opportunity to tour her magnificent farm in North Haven that is really a model of sustainability, showing really what value-added agriculture is, reclaiming the history of that island in terms of the bounty of the land. But that doesn't happen by accident. It takes commitment and followthrough and, step by step, trying to harness the forces of sound agricultural policies, good environmental stewardship to be able to add value while it protects the environment. So I am looking forward to seeing her handiwork again this summer, and I deeply appreciate her leadership tonight in terms of the environment, what she cares about in terms of nutrition, celebrity chefs. There are a whole range of things, and it underscores why we are here talking about the farm bill. It is the most important legislation that most Americans pay no attention to. It is the most important piece of legislation that, sadly, few in the House of Representatives really drill down and look at what is in it. It will be the most important health bill that this Congress will pass or consider for the remainder of this session. We still subsidize a diet that makes Americans sick, paying too much to the wrong people to grow the wrong food in the wrong places, and it is the most important environmental bill, bar none. If you care about emissions of greenhouse gasses, the agriculture sector plays a role--9 percent, it is claimed statistically. But if you factor in all of the inputs in terms of pesticides and transportation, refrigeration, you will find that it is far greater than that, and these are elements that are within our control. The gentlewoman referenced the conservation programs. It is interesting to me, in reading the guidance that the administration has put out about the farm bill and what they tout, they want to promote independence. They don't want to support dependency. They want to have higher performance standards for projects that they are involved with, yet the farm bill that is being considered now by the Republicans undercuts performance standards. When we eliminate, as the gentlewoman said, the Conservation Reserve Program, only one out of four conservation grants is currently funded. There is not enough money, and they are going to reduce it $1 billion more while eliminating the Conservation Stewardship Program. It is also stunning when there is an opportunity to provide performance standards for conservation. I have offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would apply conservation standards, that you get conservation funding if you produce results. But that is not the way it works now. The EQIP program, which hands out grants to help farmers improve the environment, you look at the practices that are authorized under this bill, that are funded under this bill, there are six or eight of them that actually hurt the environment. They are not required to enhance their environment. We pay for things like fencing and hog lagoons for big operations that ought to be able to pay their own way, and they take that money that would be available to other farmers and ranchers to be able to fund programs that would actually enhance the environment. I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership, and I appreciate what my friend from Colorado has offered up. We have other colleagues here who have some things to say. I will hang tight for a moment in case we run out of speakers, but I want to cheer folks on because it is time that we put the spotlight on this egregious bill, the King amendment, the lack of accountability, and wasteful spending.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate that. It has been fun working with Congresswoman Pingree, with my friend Ron Kind, looking at these programs over the years. There is a great essay written by Marion Nestle, an author, a professor of nutrition at NYU, and the title of the essay is ``The Farm Bill Drove Me Insane.'' As she tried to actually teach a class about the farm bill to graduate students, she dove into it and found that it was just hopelessly complex. What I appreciate about working with the gentlewoman from Maine and the gentleman from Wisconsin is it doesn't have to be that complex. We ought to be able to strip this away, have a full and honest debate, and get to the basics that make the most difference for the American public. Hopefully this thing will collapse, and we will have some time this year to work on it and make it better.