Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there may be some people that will be swept up who had gotten care that they didn't, but there will be people who will be swept up who were entitled to care who could not jump through the hurdles or, at a minimum, had their care delayed. We haven't properly analyzed that. But as I say, it is beside the point. There are tremendous opportunities for us to work together on a bipartisan agenda that we have in the Ways and Means Committee, of things that we could move forward and agree upon to make healthcare better, that doesn't depend on shredding the guarantees of the ACA; that doesn't depend on gutting Medicaid, which more Americans rely upon for their healthcare than any other program in the country. We wouldn't have to mess with that. Instead, we are having a sideshow. I don't know that it goes anywhere, but it certainly isn't the issue that Americans could focus on, should focus on, that is going to imperil their healthcare for tens of millions of Americans if the Republicans have their way. That is exactly why we are debating this today, to deflect attention, occupy time, and prevent doing the job that we should have done right here, and allow the Senate to be able to continue this unfortunate process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the president announced that he would withdraw from the non-binding Paris Agreement, undermining the credibility of the United States and displaying a complete disregard for the effects of climate change. This is unacceptable. Climate change is real. We are already experiencing rising sea levels and harsher storms at an accelerated pace, and without action, they are only going to get worse. Poll after poll show that the majority of American people support staying in the Paris Agreement, and the scientific community has reached a clear consensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity. In the face of these facts, the president continues to undermine environmental protections and reject the science of climate change. The American people should not be responsible for bailing out leaders who ignore science to gain political points, while subjecting the United States--and the rest of the world--to the catastrophic effects of climate change. That's why today I am introducing the Prohibiting Aid for Recipients Ignoring Science Act, or the PARIS Act, to ensure that any president has a stake in the catastrophic consequences of ignoring climate science. The PARIS Act would prevent properties owned by the president's family from receiving federally subsidized flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. The president should not be able to shift costs to taxpayers as he does business in flood-prone areas while withdrawing from efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to give the president a stake in this fight and to take serious action on addressing climate change. The fate of our children, our grandchildren, and the planet depends on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from sweeping changes to how care is delivered, to the rise of personalized medicine, patients today have more treatment options when facing advanced illness than ever before. With these medical advances, the line between life and death can sometimes be blurred, which has changed the way we must talk about how we want to live and die. Despite these enormous changes, confronting an advanced illness or the end of life remains one of the most difficult and challenging situations any family faces. There is substantial evidence that suggests the care individuals want to receive at the end of life is not necessarily the type of care they do receive. Patients, in fact, often receive aggressive treatment that not only substantially shortens their length of life, but its quality. At other times, patients find the health care system instead undervalues the quality of their life, withholding treatments they would otherwise want to receive. Issues surrounding the end of life and advanced illness management become even more important when looking at the rapidly aging population in the United States. In 2014, Americans ages 65 and older made up 15 percent of the total population; by 2060 that share is projected to grow to 24 percent. A recent survey conducted by The Economist and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority of U.S. adults say the government is not prepared to deal with the aging population. The same survey found that a large majority of Americans believe both that patients and their families should have a greater say in which treatment options they receive, and that most Americans don't believe they have enough control over their medical decisions at the end of life. This must change. Individuals should have every opportunity to actively participate in making decisions about their health care throughout their lives and should receive care consistent with their values, goals, and informed preferences. Patients should feel empowered to make informed choices about the health care they want and to have those care decisions honored by their providers and family. During passage of Affordable Care Act, I saw an opportunity to apply lessons learned in Oregon with its landmark comprehensive palliative care programs, which give patients more of a say about the medical treatment they want at the end of life. I worked to ensure that Congress included a payment for doctors to talk to patients and families about advance care planning in the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, this provision wasn't included in the final legislation due to a breakdown of the legislative process. After years of advocacy, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services designed a benefit allowing doctors to receive reimbursement for voluntary advance care planning conversations with their patients. For the first time, Medicare will pay for these critical doctor-patient discussions in the same way it pays for any other medical service. Yet our work to improve end-of-life care is far from over, and it is for these reasons that I am introducing the bipartisan, bicameral Patient Choice and Quality Care Act of 2017. This legislation will strengthen advanced illness care by establishing a new model of care delivery that to better manage advanced illness, improve quality of care, and enhance training, resources, and tools for providers, patients, and their families. Ideally, health care should work in sync with social, psychological, and spiritual support as the end of life approaches. Care near the end of life must be patient-centered and family-oriented. This legislation is supported by patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community, who understand how improving care delivery for advanced illness fundamentally improves quality of care and quality of life. To that end, I ask my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, May 26 was a dark moment in my community, as a hateful tirade toward two young women, evidently based on their race and faith, led to tragedy. In the face of this menacing behavior, three brave Portlanders intervened to protect these young women. Two lost their lives, another had his throat slashed. They were Ricky Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai- Meche, and Micah David-Cole Fletcher. Micah David-Cole Fletcher survived the ordeal, still expressing hope and compassion. That dark moment and bright example of courage and compassion has prompted soul-searching in my community. There has been a tremendous outpouring of support and a commitment to help the vulnerable. We all think about whether we would have had that courage. Who knows what might have happened to those two young women if those courageous people had not intervened. Based on what happened, it is highly likely that they would have been physically assaulted, injured, or worse. We think this is a wake-up call for all of us to protect the vulnerable, to resist intolerance, and to condemn behaviors and language that would incite violent behavior. We all have a stake in this so that we don't have more victims and that these three brave people's sacrifice was not in vain. I respectfully request the Chamber observe a moment of silence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I, with Representatives Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, and Greg Walden and the support of Sens. Wyden and Merkley, am introducing a resolution commemorating the bravery of Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah David-Cole Fletcher. These courageous heroes stood up against hate and injustice. Rick, Taliesin, and Micah make us proud to be Oregonians. This resolution is to honor these heroes, help our community heal, and allow for introspection and broader discussion. As we begin the process of healing, we must all continue to protect one another, help one another, and work for peace and justice. I urge the House to pass this resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 354, a resolution ``Condemning the violence against peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence on May 16, 2017, and calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and measures to be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future'' (Rollcall Vote No. 286), I would have voted ``aye.'' I would have also voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 355, a resolution ``Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Manchester, United Kingdom, on May 22, 2017, expressing heartfelt condolences, and reaffirming unwaivering support for the special relationship between our peoples and nations in the wake of these attacks'' (Rollcall Vote No. 287).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation, along with Senator Markey in the Senate, that bring us closer to a more rational U.S. nuclear posture. The Nuclear Cruise Missile Reconsideration Act of 2017 would limit Department of Defense and Department of Energy spending on the next generation air-launched nuclear cruise missile (ALCM), known as the Long Range Standoff weapon (LRSO), until the Trump administration submits a Nuclear Posture Review to Congress. The Air Force plans to replace 575 existing ALCMs with 1,000 or more LRSOs. The total cost to build this missile and life-extend its warhead (known as the W80-4) is projected at $20-30 billion. The Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act would enable the U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent without shortchanging combat readiness and operations by strategically sizing our nuclear weapons programs. This bill would save us more than $100 billion over 10 years by dialing back redundant nuclear weapons systems. Current U.S. nuclear weapons planning calls for spending $400 billion over the next decade and at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years to maintain and recapitalize our entire arsenal. This escalation would build a nuclear force far exceeding what the Pentagon and security experts have said is necessary to meet our national security objectives. We are headed down an unsustainable path. Our all-the-above approach to recapitalizing every leg of the nuclear triad will inevitably push out Army, Navy, and Air Force conventional priorities, including what we need to counter terrorism and protect our servicemembers. We have to make some tough decisions for the sake of fiscal stability, and these bills are a step in the right direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of national civics lesson, with unprecedented levels of citizen and grassroots activism driving political and policy conversations in communities across the country. It is ironic, then, that many states are trying to make it harder for Americans to participate in our democracy. On November 8, 2016, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, fourteen states had new restrictions on voting in place for the first time in a presidential election. Restrictions like these have historically targeted minority and low-income voters. This disturbing trend in state action has mirrored the weakening of campaign finance restrictions and voting rights laws by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. Even as we witness a growing civic engagement, legal and political barriers rise to unjustly diminish individual voices. Expanding vote by mail is a clear and cost effective measure to make voting easier, not harder. Mail-in voting states Oregon, Washington, and Colorado saw among the highest voter turnout in the 2016 general election, especially notable for Oregon with nearly 250,000 new automatically registered voters. The Vote By Mail Act of 2017 will build on Oregon's successful reforms at the national level The legislation will require states to mail ballots to all eligible voters in federal elections at least two weeks before the election. Every registered American voter would have the ability to return their ballots through the mail, using prepaid envelopes, or drop them off at secure predetermined drop-off locations like a public library or county elections office. This bill also shifts the burden of registration from the individual to the government. It calls on state governments to collaborate with state motor vehicle agencies to maintain updated voter registration rolls for all citizens who apply for a driver's license and who do not ask to remain unregistered. The Vote By Mail Act of 2017 is a vital step to restoring the mandate of American democracy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we began this debate listening to my friend from Texas talk about how he was humbled to be here today supporting the Republican bill. Well, frankly, I think he should be embarrassed, embarrassed that my Republican colleagues are afraid to have a full, open, lengthy debate about these impacts. We are taking a consequential piece of legislation, and Republicans are jamming it through without a CBO score so they don't know the impacts, and we don't have the confidence. We do know, however, my friend from Massachusetts has read into the Record item after item, the medical association, disease advocacy groups, the American Association of Retired People, it is an honor roll of people who know about health care, who fought to preserve and protect and enhance, and the Republicans have no answer to refute this litany of experts who are independent, who are professional, who care. Who are opposed. That is something that I think Republicans should be ashamed of. They have had 7 years chipping away at the Affordable Care Act to try to make it worse, yet it still is supported by people who know. The Republican approach should be rejected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Library of Congress Caucus, I care deeply about the services and the mission of the Library, including the U.S. Copyright Office. It's past time to bring the Library and the Copyright Office into the 21st Century, and I strongly support efforts to modernize and reform existing practices. H.R. 1695, however, might unnecessarily politicize the Copyright Office and the position of the Register and could make its work less transparent and less neutral to all parties. We should allow Dr. Carla Hayden to continue to guide the modernization process by selecting a Register, a decision enjoyed by all of her predecessors to hold the office of Librarian. While it is unclear that H.R. 1695 would do more good than harm, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of aisle on future efforts to reform and modernize the Library of Congress the copyright system.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, like many people, I have noticed a renewed interest in the 25th Amendment as we have seen erratic behavior out of the White House. As I examined the Amendment, it became clear that in the case of mental or emotional incapacity, there is a glaring flaw. In the absence of Congressional action, the constitutional language depends on actions by the Cabinet. Because the Cabinet can be fired by the President, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the President's inability to serve. It's time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the President becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office. The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago in the wake of President Kennedy's assassination. It provides a mechanism for the succession of the President for his or her replacement in the event he or she proves unfit to serve. Under the Amendment, the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some ``other body'' designated by Congress, may remove the President from office. While the language is straightforward, it raises a host of questions. This ``other body,'' rather than the principal officers of the executive branch, is undefined and there is no guidance for how it should operate. This legislation determines the body would consist of the Vice President, advised by a majority of the living former Presidents and Vice-Presidents. These people have been President, or in the line of succession and understand the pressures of the office and the responsibilities the Presidency entails. They are of both parties, experienced, and well regarded by the American public. It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the Vice President to examine whether the President is able to discharge the duties of the office. When there are questions about the President's ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country's best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act. This bill will ensure that oil companies can no longer sidestep paying their fair share into the dedicated trust fund created so that, in the event of an oil spill, there are resources immediately available for cleanup. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, authorized in 1990, ensures we have funding available to pay for the immediate costs of cleaning up oil spills. It is funded by an eight cents per barrel excise tax on crude oil and petroleum products. In 2011, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a misguided decision stating that oil derived from tar sands is not considered crude oil and is therefore currently exempt from the tax that pays into the Fund. Oil that comes from tar sands is a thick, sticky form of crude oil that can be more difficult and costly to clean up than other types of crude. In 2010, for example, a pipeline owned and operated by a Canadian company, Enbridge, spilled more than 850,000 gallons of tar sands oil into a waterway that flows into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. That has been one of the largest and costliest pipeline spills in American history, with the price tag now at $1.2 billion dollars. While I do not support the development of tar sands--doing so is environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive, we should not keep in place a loophole that lets big oil companies off the hook for cleaning up their tar sands spills. The Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act would add oil derived from tar sands and oil shale to the definition of crude oil, closing the current loophole and ensuring that oil companies pay into the fund. Oil companies already get billions of dollars in taxpayer-based subsidies, and this bill will ensure they will not be given an additional free ride on tar sands and any future oil shale development.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Limiting Inhumane Federal Trapping (LIFT) Act, which would severely restrict the use of inhumane body-gripping traps on public lands and by public officials. Every year, countless dogs, cats, and wild animals are injured and killed in body-gripping traps such as leg and foothold, Conibear, and snare traps. The animals caught in these traps are subject to intense pain that can last for hours, or even days. If they don't die immediately from the injuries, animals can suffer from dehydration, predation, or when a trapper eventually finds them. Furthermore, pets and other companion animals can be the victims of these traps. Body-gripping traps are non-selective in their victims, and can be particularly dangerous if set in popular areas. There are many effective non-lethal methods that can be deployed in place of these cruel traps. Despite these serious risks, body-gripping traps are used by federal agencies, local governments, private entities, and individual trappers to catch creatures for their fur, keep animals away from livestock and crops, and even for recreational purposes. Wildlife Services, a federal agency notorious for its secrecy and use of inhumane animal management techniques, often uses body-gripping traps as a first resort. This results in the death or capture of thousands of animals per year in these cruel body-gripping traps. Federal agencies too often avoid more humane, effective, and non-lethal control options to control animal species. The LIFT Act would ensure that federal agencies, including Wildlife Services, do a better job of regulating trapping by non- federal entities on public lands, thereby limiting cruelty and protecting public safety. Inhumane trapping is a problem in Oregon and across the country. There have been too many unfortunate examples of wild animals and pets falling victim to these traps. This bill complements efforts by other colleagues in the House and Senate to crack down on the use of body- gripping traps in light of the growing public acknowledgement that we cannot and should not continue to endorse the widespread use of these inhumane devices.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it has come to this: considering hopelessly flawed legislation that the Republicans have had 7 years to prepare for and still couldn't do it right. It may still pass, but it is never going to be enacted because most people are figuring it out. They don't like it and they are being heard. That is why this bill has been stalled and the Republicans have been forced to twist the legislation in this fashion. But the bottom line remains: TrumpCare will cost more for people who need it the most. It will hurt older and lower-income people in order to create tax cuts for people who need them the least. TrumpCare will destabilize health insurance and will slowly but surely destroy Medicaid. It didn't have to be that way, but as long as people continue speaking out and fighting back with us, it won't be in the future, and we can have a new era in health care and in politics. With their help, it will be.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I voted, I would have voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 168). This bill contains provisions that infringe on the collective bargaining and due process rights of Veterans Affairs' employees. Should this legislation become public law, it would have a damaging effect on patient care and VA recruitment, limiting the agency's efficiency.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there was a television program some years ago that Monty Hall had: ``Let's Make a Deal.'' Well, up in the Rules Committee, we are acting out a congressional version of ``Let's Make a Deal.'' People aren't dressing up like radishes and jumping up and down, but they are trying to contort the flawed Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act into something that can somehow thread the needle and get votes through the House of Representatives. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate. This week we are commemorating the seventh anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We don't need costumes and jumping up and down. It has reduced the uninsured rate to the lowest in our history. It has strengthened rural and small town hospitals across the country. It has extended coverage to people who otherwise would not have it. Repeal of this amazing accomplishment would be unprecedented. It would be sad, and it would be wrong. I sincerely hope that we are going to be able to focus our attention on something that will make a difference, not forcing Americans to pay more for inferior coverage and deny it to many others.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, America's water systems are in crisis. The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 report card graded our wastewater infrastructure a D+, while drinking water received a D. While our clean water needs are estimated to be nearly $11 billion per year, appropriations for clean water infrastructure have averaged just $1.4 billion per year over the past five years. Drinking water infrastructure is in worse shape--the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that we need to invest over $19 billion annually to ensure the provision of safe tap water, while Congress appro riates less than $1 billion. Though most of our water and wastewater systems are 75 to 100 years old, these growing challenges are not due to age alone: federal investment has fallen more than 85 percent since 1977. Our failure to maintain and improve our water infrastructure doesn't only result in a poor grade on paper, it has real and dangerous outcomes, like the ongoing lead crisis in Flint, MI or lead-tainted water in Portland Public Schools. Water infrastructure-related problems are not confined to attention-grabbing headlines. Last year alone, American communities suffered more than 250,000 water main breaks and saw overflowing combined sewer systems--causing contamination, property damage, disruptions in the water supply, and massive traffic jams. These problems will only increase. It is time to establish a dedicated trust fund for water infrastructure similar to the Highway Trust Fund. In honor of Water Week, today, I'm introducing the Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act. This bipartisan bill will provide a small, deficit-neutral source of revenue to help states replace, repair, and rehabilitate critical clean and drinking water facilities. Half of the trust fund revenue will be distributed to local governments as grants and loans through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) for wastewater treatment construction, while the other 50 percent will be distributed through the existing Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to finance projects to meet federal drinking water standards. The Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act is a step in the right direction to addressing our growing water challenges, keeping our kids and families healthy and our communities safe, livable, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act and the success we have had in extending care to Americans has been the specific attack on Medicaid. Fourteen million of the 24 million people who will lose coverage under the Republican bill are under the Medicaid program. Medicaid is critical to the provision of health care in the United States. Medicaid covers more people than Medicare. Medicaid expansion has been transformational in the 31 States that took advantage of the provision in the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage to people who make up to 138 percent of poverty--roughly $16,600 for a single individual and almost $34,000 for a family of four. Until then, Medicaid has provided extension of care to the elderly, to the poor, and to the disabled. It was helpful, but very restrictive. In some cases, people who earned a modest sum--$7,000, $10,000, $12,000--were ineligible, especially in those 19 States that refused to take advantage of the opportunity to expand the Medicaid coverage at Federal expense. Mr. Speaker, this is America. So even though these poor, disabled people did not have access to Medicaid, many of them did ultimately secure health care. But they got it too late. They got it in the emergency room. They didn't get it in a clinic in a timely fashion. And, of course, the cost for that charity care in emergency rooms or in clinics was borne by the rest of us in increased costs for our insurance. The Republican draconian provisions, even before they put into effect an absolutely unnecessary and unenforceable work requirement, will be devastating to millions. Bear in mind, these people now are receiving care in an appropriate clinic session. They will be getting it now when it is too late, and that burden shifted on to the rest of us. There will be a tax credit that doesn't help people who don't have enough money to buy meaningful coverage in the private market. Under the Republican plan, coverage will become worse, deductibles and copays will become higher, and we risk destabilizing the insurance market for the rest of us. Now, we have heard on the floor, in committee, and on the news shows our Republican friends and the President talking about the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral and that the insurance industry is collapsing. Hardly. There was a fascinating article in the weekend New York Times that looked at the insurance industry. Since March of 2010, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the overall stock market has more than doubled. It has increased 136 percent. But the managed care health organizations have increased their stock value almost 300 percent. The largest, UnitedHealth, 480 percent. A signal of an industry in a death spiral? Absolutely not. The companies are healthy and investors are bidding up their stock. The CBO report that our Republican friends did not want us to have before we voted on the bill in committee in the middle of the night testifies to this underlying stability of the insurance market and the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid under the Republican plan will be shifted back increasingly to the States, which have repeatedly proven that they are incapable of maintaining high eligibility funding to help the poor and the near poor. And when budget crunches hit, it is the poor who suffer most with restrictions in their coverage. We have also heard that the Republican plan will provide much-needed flexibility. That is nonsense. There is already ample flexibility under the Affordable Care Act. I represent Oregon. We were able to negotiate an agreement with the Federal Government under the 1115 waiver program that other States have that represented a unique partnership with the Federal Government to achieve better care, better results, and restrain Medicare costs. We have got the flexibility. There is no need to destroy the program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Columbia River In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites Improvement Act. For decades now, the federal government has forgone its obligations to the four Columbia River Treaty Tribes, after flooding tribal communities, houses, and traditional hunting and fishing sites with the construction of the Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day dams. This bill is just part of the work we are pursuing to improve the living conditions at these sites along the Columbia River. This issue deserves significant attention and investment from the federal government. The history of the 31 Columbia River In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites dates back decades. Development that began in the 1930s displaced many members of the four Columbia River treaty tribes: the Warm Springs, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Yakama Nation. Those tribes have a treaty-protected right to fish along the river at their usual and accustomed places that needs to be respected. The tribes were also promised housing to replace what was inundated after the dams became operational and that promise has largely not been kept. I'm working with my colleagues and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the effected tribes to address these unmet needs through the appropriations process and other legislation. To address fishing access that was wiped out by the dams, the Corps constructed 31 small sites along the Columbia, designed primarily for daily, in-season fishing access and temporary camping. However, largely due to the lack of promised permanent housing and out of a desire to be closer to the Columbia River, their cultural heritage, and traditional fishing areas, many tribal members live in makeshift housing or shelters at these sites. Because they were not designed for longer-term or permanent use, the conditions at these sites are deeply distressing and unsafe, without proper electricity, sewers, or water. I have seen these conditions firsthand on multiple visits, and they have garnered attention from local and national media. The sites are in dire need of urgent upgrades to electrical, sewer, and other infrastructure, beyond their daily operations and maintenance needs. This legislation calls for BIA to conduct a much-needed assessment of current conditions at the In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access sites under BIA ownership on both sides of the Columbia, in coordination with the tribes. It authorizes the BIA to improve existing federal structures and infrastructure, improve sanitation and safety conditions, and improve access to electricity, sewer, and water infrastructure. BIA may contract with tribes and tribal organizations to conduct this important work that will lay a critical foundation for the construction of permanent tribal housing. This is a significant and meaningful step in improving the living conditions at these sites and should be passed by the House and Senate. Our efforts will not stop here. I will continue working with federal partners and tribal nations to see that the need for more permanent housing is fulfilled and tribal member's treaty rights are respected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the November election, it has been exciting to watch the unprecedented outpouring of citizen concern, activism, and, in some cases, outrage. America is finding its voice so Congress can find its spine. Most recently, the people are demanding Congress be held accountable for the outrageous efforts on behalf of Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, forcing more expensive coverage for insurance plans that will not be as good and breaking the Trump promise of better, more affordable health care. It has become clear that the Republican plan would force older Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 to pay 60 percent more for their health insurance coverage. The Republican plan also seeks to unwind the life-changing expansion under Medicaid that has provided care for the poor, disabled, and lower income and helps people with mental illness and opioid addiction. Wildly increasing the ranks of the uninsured and lowering the quality of care and affordability is so unacceptable to the American public that it is exposing deep divisions within the Republican ranks. The wrecking crew is being slowed as public awareness and citizen action spread across the country. This morning, the American public has drawn a new assignment: to resist the Trump budget. It is shocking in its reckless cuts to programs that Americans hold dear. What does it say that the cuts proposed to the Environmental Protection Agency are so extreme that even the EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has made a career out of attacking the EPA, found it too brutal even for him? The unnecessary expansion of some defense spending, especially the trillion-dollar spending spree that we are embarking on for new nuclear weapons, is completely out of sync with our real defense needs and slashing vital State Department programs that enhance our security. Trump would not just impose shocking reductions on peacekeeping and humanitarian action, but he would deny the State Department the ability to exercise soft power. This compromises our national security interests and leaves us less safe. Critical and widely supported lifesaving medical research efforts will be slashed, reversing years of bipartisan effort to enhance medical research to fight disease, illness, and disability. At a time of housing crisis across the country, some of the few Federal tools to increase affordability and combat homelessness are being cut away. This budget disaster would even zero out Federal support for public broadcasting, even though it represents just a tiny sliver of Federal budget and supports a vital public service. Public broadcasting is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, even those who voted for Donald Trump. Appallingly, those cuts would punish rural and small town America that are more dependent than anybody else on public broadcasting support to be able to maintain that service. The people who are resisting this reckless administration have this new assignment: resist the budget; make clear to their representatives that it should be dead on arrival; that decades of bipartisan support for vital programs to protect the environment, human services, international humanitarian interest, medical research, even public broadcasting will not be tolerated. People are making a difference, but America needs all of us to find our voice so that Congress does its job.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week commemorates Brain Awareness Week, which presents an important opportunity to educate lawmakers, students, and the broader public about brain science, and its many impacts and benefits. This is critical when you consider that brain disorders and diseases affect the lives of nearly 100 million Americans--from Alzheimer's to ALS to mental illness. Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders are among the leading causes of disability in the United States and around the world--greater than heart disease and cancer put together. As society ages, this number will increase exponentially as will the cost to the healthcare system and to the economy. Yet, the underlying causes of most neurological diseases remain unknown. Neuroscience is the next great frontier. Research and work being done in this field needs to be front and center in both the private world and Congress. The bipartisan Congressional Neuroscience Caucus' mission is to build awareness of the intrinsic role brain research plays in understanding ourselves and our society. As the Co-Founder and Co-Chair, I am committed to working on these important issues and hope my colleagues will join our efforts as members of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating 2 weeks here on Capitol Hill. We have had, last week, all night sessions in our Ways and Means Committee and on the Energy and Commerce Committee dealing with the Republican plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. At times, Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to process all of the claims and counterclaims that are going on. I feel occasionally like I am in an alternative universe, and it is not just because we were up until 4:30 in the morning debating this. People have lost track of how we got to this point--what was happening earlier, what has been the benefit and accomplishment of the Affordable Care Act, and what is going to happen moving forward were we to adopt a really disastrous proposal advanced by my Republican friends. Twenty-five years ago, I was in a different role as Portland's commissioner of public works. And one of the elements in my portfolio for several years was to deal with personnel and benefits and health care. I am fully aware of trying to deal with our 6,000 employees to provide them with affordable health care that the city, as the employer, could afford, and that wasn't too burdensome on our employees. We were caught in a situation with rapidly escalating costs, inflation for medical care twice the rate of the ordinary inflation; we were having problems with employers maintaining coverage in an affordable fashion; and the individual market was, frankly, very chaotic and troublesome. I have with me here a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation from March of 2009. They talked about these challenges--how the United States healthcare spending had risen from 1970 from 7.2 percent of the gross domestic product to where they projected that it was going to cost us by 2018, next year. It would be $4.3 trillion, $13,100 per resident, and account for over 20 percent of the gross domestic product. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that, as a result of the unprecedented reforms that were incorporated in the Affordable Care Act, we were able to deal with this problem. We began 10 years ago, when Democrats gained control of Congress, working on expansion of the CHIP program, children's health, and it was one of the first actions signed into law by President Obama when he assumed office and we weren't facing a veto from the Bush administration. We have been working for over 3 years trying to lay the foundation for moving forward with a comprehensive approach for healthcare reform. And it should be noted, for all of the hyperbole about socialized medicine and government dictating outcomes and taking control away from the American people, that is the furthest thing from the truth. In fact, the program that was developed by President Obama and the Democrats, with no help from Republicans, was actually a middle ground. It relied upon the private insurance that most Americans had through work, and be able to expand that coverage, to be able to improve the quality of care, to be able to rein in medical inflation, to be able to deal with some of the most needy of us, and to be able to have a healthcare system that performed better. The simple fact is we spend about twice as much as any other developed country in the world. And our outcomes, on average, are worse than what happens in those countries that my friends on the other side of the aisle derided--Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany. As a practical matter, those people get sick less often, they get well faster, they live longer, and they do so for a fraction of what we pay. So what we did, through a very extensive process--multiple public hearings, meetings, seminars, position papers that were generated from a wide variety of areas--was to assemble a program to deal with that. One of the elements that drew the scorn of my Republican friends, and, in fact, is part of their repeal that is one of the centerpieces, is to repeal the mandate that people have health care. It is ironic that that has become a target from Republicans because the mandate came from Republican alternatives to HillaryCare in the Clinton administration. In fact, 19 Republican Senators, including Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, supported a healthcare mandate to be able to expand and stabilize the health insurance market. Well, what we have done through those 2 years that it was enacted, March 23, 2010--we are approaching the seventh anniversary--it went live in the fall and was fully in effect in 2014. So in the 3 years that the Affordable Care Act has been in place, it has had remarkable achievements. You recall I mentioned what the studies showed that we were facing with rapidly escalating healthcare costs, where it was estimated that we would be having over 20 percent of the gross domestic product, we would be approaching over $13,100 per resident. Well, that didn't happen. Despite the dire predictions of the Republican opposition, healthcare costs did not skyrocket. In fact, we anticipate now that instead of being over $13,000 per resident, it is under $10,000 after a couple years of operation of the Affordable Care Act. Not over 20 percent of the gross domestic product, but 18 percent. We have found that these are the lowest rates of medical inflation since we have been keeping track. The Affordable Care Act, by any stretch of the imagination, has been a success. We have seen coverage expand dramatically to the lowest rate of uninsured in the United States in our history while we have contained costs. That success is all the more remarkable because there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Republicans, from the moment they seized control of the House in 2011, to make it worse. Bear in mind, the Republicans attacked the Affordable Care Act in court, on the floor of the House, and in terms of trying to muddy the waters on the State level. The Supreme Court challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act failed. The Supreme Court decided that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional and would remain. But the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that allowed individual States to opt out of Medicaid expansion. That was part of the program that was so important to be able to extend care on a cost- effective basis to some of the lowest income people in the country. Thirty-one States did. Nineteen States refused to do so. That undercut the coverage, made huge problems, created situations where there were people in the Republican-controlled States that refused to extend Medicaid, despite the fact that the Federal Government was paying for it, that we had people who were too poor to qualify for assistance. Shocking, embarrassing, and to the detriment of those States, they had much worse outcomes. But it is ironic that some of the people who started attacking the Congressional Budget Office projections about the impact of the Republican plan pointed to the calculation on the part of the CBO that they underestimated the number of people who would be uninsured. Well, that was precisely because there was no expectation that States would not expand Medicare, and if that unfortunate decision hadn't been made, we would, in fact, have seen them hit their target numbers. Despite the claims of outrage on the Republican side that there would be employers dropping coverage for their employees en masse, we found that, in the main, employers retained coverage. Now, this is not the case going forward with the Republican proposal. I think there was a reason why my Republican friends insisted on jamming this through the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee before we had a chance for the scorekeeper, the CBO, to give the results of their analysis: because they knew how bad it would look. The CBO anticipates that there will be 14 million more uninsured Americans, including 2 million who will lose coverage provided by their employer because of the way their alternative tax credit for health insurance would be structured. In my State, it is estimated that as many as 465,000 Oregonians could lose coverage. The uninsured rate will triple in our State. One of the areas that has been most successful with the Affordable Care Act has been for older Americans. They benefit from the protections against discrimination, and they are going to see a return to much higher premiums and higher costs. The Republican plan would take the requirement that seniors pay no more than three times the rate of insurance for premiums for younger people, that will be five times greater. And instead of the subsidy that is based on income, there will just be a flat subsidy across the board. This means, in practice, that older Americans are going to face steeply higher premiums, and they are going to pay far more out-of- pocket because of the less generous subsidy. One example that ought to get, I think, everybody's attention: In 2026, a 64-year-old with an income of about $26,500 would pay $14,600 for their health insurance as opposed to $1,700 today, an increase of almost $13,000. Now, there are winners and losers under the Republican approach. The healthy, young people will catch a break, but older Americans will pay a lot more at precisely the time when they need health insurance. Now, our Speaker appeared to be confused when he was describing the difference between the Republican approach and the Affordable Care Act, when he talked about how all of these people are being subsidized by the majority, who aren't sick. As many commentators rushed to point out to the Speaker, that is what insurance is about. Many people pay some to subsidize those who suffer loss. You pay a couple of hundred dollars a year for auto insurance so that, when you have a $10,000 loss, that is picked up by the people who don't suffer a loss but paid the premiums nonetheless. Think about what the Republicans have put in place. They are doubling down on what the Trump administration has done trying to discredit the efficacy of the program, casting it in doubt. The administration has already stopped enforcing the mandate. The IRS is supposed to check and enforce to make sure that people sign up for the ACA and everybody is part of the insurance pool, just like States have mandatory auto insurance. You are not allowed to run the risk of harming your fellow motorists by not having insurance. That is widely accepted and understood that it is necessary to have the system work right. Now the Republicans are increasing the damage that Trump has imposed, unilaterally, by not enforcing the mandate. They are going to repeal the mandate. In place of the mandate, they are going to have a 30 percent surcharge in case people drop coverage and decide to reenter the insurance pool. Well, think about that for a moment. The people who are young, healthy, who feel invincible and don't have healthcare problems now are very likely not to get insurance at all. They figure that when they get sick, they can go ahead, pay the 30 percent premium. If they find out they have got cancer, some serious disease, then they can sign up later. It is designed to destabilize the insurance system that we have. By the same token, we are looking at the other end of the spectrum where the people who are lower income, older, and sick are going to pay a disproportionate burden. That is why the CBO determined, in their analysis, that in 2026, actually, there will be a drop in terms of insurance premiums, in terms of the cost. They will start to go down. They will go down because older Americans will be unable to afford the premium. They will drop the coverage. It is not that they don't need health care. It is not that they are going to somehow avoid becoming sick or having accidents, but they are not going to have insurance coverage. That means the care that many of them are going to experience will be what we were fighting against before the Affordable Care Act. It will be in the emergency room. It will be when it is too late. It is not in a clinic before things get worse. It is after the fact, and it is in a setting that is not nearly as effective. Mr. Speaker, it is really disappointing that part of the assault is on the Medicaid program itself. Medicaid is this program that provides care to the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, children, poor people. It is part of the bedrock safety net of this country. Republicans were against the expansion of Medicaid and making the qualifications to have Medicaid be more generous. Under the Affordable Care Act, it is 138 percent of poverty, so lower and middle-income families are able to access this care. Prior to that, there were widely varying requirements across the country, and many of the States, particularly in the South, the States that declined to expand Medicaid, were facing really onerous restrictions--$10,000, $12,000, $7,000 family income--making it very, very hard and for only the most desperately poor to qualify for it. Now, the Republican plan will eliminate the Medicaid expansion in its current form. It would cap Medicaid funding, and, ultimately, we are going to watch, reverting to what we had before--in effect, de facto rationing. In Oregon, the Republican plan would shift $2.5 billion back to the States over the next 6 years. States are going to be left with impossible decisions: reducing benefits, cutting people off of Medicaid. This is what has happened historically when people ran into difficult financial times in the States. They didn't raise taxes to make sure that the poor were provided coverage; they cut back coverage even more. Sadly, under the Republican plan, 14 million Americans would lose Medicaid coverage by 2026, and it would start having its impact in less than 3 years. The policy would also severely set back efforts to combat opioid addiction and improve mental health treatment. In my community, as I visit health centers, find out what is going on in clinics, in local government, officials that deal with the homeless, the drug addicted, the mentally ill, we found that they are using the opportunity to enroll people in Medicaid to give them proper care and not put that burden on local governments that they simply can't cope with. The Republican plan would prevent that. We won't be able to have people most in need provided with the mental health, the addiction services, the health care that they need. The Republican plan would put 2.8 million people with substance disorders, including over 200,000--about 220,000 is the estimate that I have seen--with opioid disorders, at risk of losing their coverage, including the coverage of addiction treatment, continuing the tragic cycle that we see played out in our streets across the country, but particularly in Appalachia. Some of the areas that actually were most opposed to the Affordable Care Act have received the greatest benefit. In a time of concern about budget deficits, repealing the Affordable Care taxes--which we approved in the Ways and Means Committee in the middle of the night last week--would create an immediate windfall tax cut for the highest American taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act was a balanced plan that actually reduced the deficit while it improved healthcare outcomes across the country. This approach is going to provide--for example, the top 400 earners would see an average tax break of about $7 million a year, and people who are millionaires will be receiving tax cuts averaging $57,000 apiece; but, as it plays out, we will find taxes would raise significantly on about 7 million low- and moderate-income families. Mr. Speaker, it also puts in jeopardy Medicare coverage for 57 million Americans by cutting the Medicare trust fund resources. Because of the total impact of what we have done with the Affordable Care Act, we have watched the Medicare trust fund have its life extended 2 years. The Republican tax proposal will cut $170 billion from the Medicare trust fund, moving it closer to being insolvent. It is fascinating. Donald Trump promised not to touch Medicare or Medicaid. This plan violates both those promises. And as I had mentioned, the Trump promise that everybody would be covered under the Republican plan rings false. That is simply not the case. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting, in the course of our deliberations, we received correspondence from the American Association of Retired Persons. They represent 38 million members in all 50 States, in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It has a proven track record of being nonpartisan, a nationwide organization that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real possibilities for older Americans. They have a wide range of issues for which they have championed and gained notoriety; but, most significantly, we have watched them be involved with healthcare decisions, and they have been proven nonpartisan. In fact, I took issue with them when we were dealing with the Medicare part D prescription drug program in 2004. It was unfortunate, I thought, that they kind of threw their weight to an inadequate program that was not paid for, that added to the deficit, and didn't do anything to fight to reduce prescription drug costs. But they made the judgment that this was the best they could do for the people they represented, and they didn't hesitate for a moment to work with Republicans to be able to enact that. They wrote on March 7 to the chairs of our Energy and Commerce Committee and our Ways and Means Committee to express their opposition to the American Health Care Act. They did so because it would weaken Medicare's fiscal sustainability. They said it would dramatically increase the healthcare cost for Americans age 50 to 64 and put at risk the health care of millions of children and adults with disabilities and poor seniors who depend on Medicaid programs for long-term services, supports, and other benefits. They have long fought to protect Medicare, and they pointed out in their correspondence that the 2016 Medicare trustee report said that the Medicare part A trust fund is solvent until 2028. This is 11 years longer than the projection immediately before the Affordable Care Act. Because of the changes in the Affordable Care Act, we gained solvency, 11 years longer. Now, they have serious concerns about the Health Care Act that repealed provisions that strengthen the fiscal outlook, specifically the repeal of the .9 percent payroll tax on higher income workers. According to their analysis, this provision would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by up to 4 years and diminish Medicare's ability to pay for services in the future. Think about it, Mr. Speaker, we are dramatically increasing the number of uninsured Americans. We are going to give them more expensive insurance of a lower quality. They will have higher deductibles and copays. At the same time, we are jeopardizing the future of Medicare, which so many American seniors rely upon. They pointed out that about 6.1 million Americans age 50 to 64 purchase their insurance in the nongroup market, and that over half of them were eligible to receive subsidies for health insurance coverage. They note the significant reduction in the number of uninsured since passage of the ACA, with the number of people in that age bracket dropping by half. Yet, according to CBO, what is going to happen if the Republican plan is enacted, that that number is going to go back up again, it is going to be unaffordable for a number of seniors, and they are going to be paying a much higher cost. Mr. Speaker, it is troubling that we are having a debate where we really have tried to discredit independent sources, where we have had no hearing dealing with the legislation that is rushing toward the House floor. It is ironic that there was debate and discussion criticizing Democrats for the 3 years we spent developing the framework for moving the legislation forward. And after 6 years of my Republican friends being in power in the House, chipping away, undermining the Affordable Care Act, trying to make it worse, discrediting it, and voting over 60 times to repeal it, they do not have a plan in place to replace it. Now, this is the best we can come up with. It is a program that is widely discredited. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, joined by 14 original cosponsors, I am pleased to reintroduce the Superfund Reinvestment Act. This legislation would provide much needed funding to clean up toxic waste sites throughout the United States and relieve the financial burden of cleanup that is currently shouldered by the American taxpayers. There are more than 1,100 severely polluted Superfund sites across the United States that approximately 49 million Americans live within three miles of. These contaminated sites harm air and water quality and threaten the economic and social vitality of vulnerable communities. These communities can be exposed to toxins such as arsenic, benzene, PCBs, mercury, and a wide range of solvents, which can lead to health problems such as infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia, and respiratory difficulties. The Superfund program was originally created in 1980 to clean up these contaminated sites help reduce exposure to the health risks and fears that come from living close to toxic waste. Unfortunately, at approximately 30 percent of Superfund sites known as orphan sites, those responsible for the pollution cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, so instead the federal government foots the bill. Originally, payments for orphan sites were financed through taxes on chemicals, petroleum, and corporate income, which were deposited into the Superfund Liability Trust Fund. This Fund ensured that those industries responsible for pollution pay for the remediation of sites where there is no responsible party. These taxes expired in 1995 and were not reauthorized. As a result, the Trust Fund has been depleted and the funding for the cleanup of orphan sites has shifted primarily to general funds. The Superfund Reinvestment Act would reinstate taxes on the petrochemical industry to fund the cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the country. It would make sure that polluters, not taxpayers, are paying for cleanup of orphan sites. The bill includes excise taxes of $.163 per barrel on crude oil or refined oil products and taxes ranging from $.51 to $11.35 per ton on certain chemicals. The bill would reinstate a corporate environmental income tax of .12 percent on a corporation's modified alternative minimum taxable income that exceeds $3.735 million. This legislation would expand the definition of oil to include unconventional crude oil sources, such as tar sands and oil shale. This legislation also would guarantee that money from the Trust Fund is only spent on Superfund cleanups. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program by ensuring that polluters continue to pay. With our environment at such a high risk, we need a fully funded Superfund program now more than ever. Restoring these taxes will go a long way towards making certain that funds are available to cleanup America's most toxic waste sites and to help keep our communities and our families safe, healthy and economically secure for future generations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, March 13 through 17, 2017 commemorates Brain Awareness Week, which presents an important opportunity to educate lawmakers, students, and the broader public about brain science, and its many impacts and benefits. This is critical when you consider that brain disorders and diseases affect the lives of nearly 100 million Americans--from Alzheimer's to ALS to mental illness. Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders are among the leading causes of disability in the United States and around the world--greater than heart disease and cancer put together. As society ages, this number will increase exponentially as will the cost to the healthcare system and to the economy. Yet, the underlying causes of most neurological diseases remain unknown. Neuroscience is the next great frontier. Research and work being done in this field needs to be front and center in both the private world and Congress. The bipartisan Congressional Neuroscience Caucus' mission is to build awareness of the intrinsic role brain research plays in understanding ourselves and our society. As the Co-Founder and Co-Chair, I am committed to working on these important issues and hope my colleagues will join our efforts as members of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus.