Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the James Madison Legacy Project, a nationwide teacher professional development program, currently being implemented in Oregon by the Classroom Law Project, a civic education non-profit in Portland, Oregon. Led by Executive Director Marilyn Cover, Classroom Law Project brings vital and engaging civics and law-related education programs into the classrooms across Oregon, teaching students of all grade levels the values and skills essential to being a participating citizen in our democracy. Each year, Classroom Law Project's innovative, practical, and fun programs involve and inspire over 800 teachers and 60,000 Oregon students. The James Madison Legacy Project, made possible by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Supporting Effective Educator Development program, is a three year nationwide initiative of the Center for Civic Education that recently entered its second year. The project aims to provide professional development for over 2000 teachers of high-need students, help over 200,000 students meet state standards in civics and government, serve the self-identified professional development needs of more than 500 participating schools with significant concentrations of high-need students throughout the United States. The project will also evaluate the relative effectiveness of the Center's traditional We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution professional development model enhanced with online resources compared with a new blended-learning variation of the traditional model that also uses online resources. The key goals of the James Madison Legacy Project are providing the best practices in civic education directly to teachers and identifying cost-effective ways to provide accessible professional development programs, particularly for teachers in high-needs schools. With exceptional professional development, teachers are better equipped to help students gain the knowledge and skills necessary in a participatory democracy. Through the James Madison Legacy Project, Oregon teachers are learning directly from current and past members of the Oregon Supreme Court, constitutional scholars, and master teachers. The project includes follow-up services so that teachers can more readily implement what they learn in their classrooms. Future professional development will include opportunities to examine primary source documents from our country's founding, a private tour of the Oregon Historical Society and exhibit on the Founders, and lectures from First and Fourteenth Amendment scholars. Teachers will also have an exclusive behind the scenes view of the renowned Oregon High School State We the People Competition in January 2017. The Center for Civic Education and Oregon's Classroom Law Project are at forefront of innovative and equitable civic education in America, and I look forward to their continued success and accomplishment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to serve with many exceptional people during my tenure in Congress. This year, there are a number of my Democratic colleagues who are leaving who will be sorely missed. We just heard from one--Gwen Graham. And Lois Capps is in a chair in front of me and will be speaking soon. Today I would like to take a moment to recognize two exceptional friends of mine on the other side of the aisle, Republicans who enriched my time in Congress and brought honor to this body. I rise today to speak of the service of Richard Hanna and Reid Ribble. These two gentlemen represent small town America--rural Upstate New York, in the case of Richard; and Green Bay, Wisconsin, and surrounding environments in the case of Reid. They have a number of similarities. They are both hardworking, dedicated Members of this Chamber, who leave after only three terms. They are fiercely dedicated to their family, and family concerns figured heavily into their decision not to seek reelection. They have both been very successful businesspeople, building their own enterprises; taking pride, in the case of Reid, in the employment and terrific service from a roofing company; and Richard, founding and growing a construction enterprise. Both are accomplished in a broad range of other areas. Richard is a pilot who travels across the country piloting his own plane. Reid recently completed a motorcycle trip from Alaska, all the way across North America to the Florida Keys; most of it with his wife riding along with him. They are both what normally would have been regarded as conservative Republicans. That description really belies their approach and their value to the institution. In some respects, they may actually entertain some libertarian leanings. But they believe in less interference, whether it is liberal overreach or zealotry of the other extreme. Richard is equally disdainful of government telling women what they and their doctors should do with women's bodies. They are both deeply concerned about budgets and the economy--core Republican values in the past--with Reid famously, in an exchange with some of his Tea Party constituents, indicating that they weren't fair to their grandchildren by refusing to even consider raising the gas tax to meet our transportation needs, and he made an eloquent case. Richard has been a partner with me for the last two Congresses as we work with transportation stakeholders to try to inform one another and find common ground, working forward on solutions to common problems of rebuilding and renewing America. I fully respect the decision of both gentlemen to follow their instincts and their families to the next phase of their careers, but their decision to end congressional service weakens this institution. The fact that we could not find enough incentive to keep them here, being productive and adding their wisdom and energy, says something about the challenges that this Congress faces in the years ahead. Serving with them has been a remarkable pleasure. They have helped both Republicans and Democrats function a little better in a largely dysfunctional climate. They have both given good advice to their Republican colleagues, which I hope, as they leave, will find greater resonance with those who are left. We are going through a great period of a national civics lesson, where Americans discover that elections have consequences, that facts really should matter, and voters need to be very discerning about the decisions they make. Richard Hanna and Reid Ribble have helped, through their service, to advance that civics lesson. I will be grateful to them for as long as I am a citizen, and I look forward to years of friendship in the future and maybe ways to advance that national civics lesson that they speak to so eloquently by their service.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon lost an extraordinary statesman last week with the passing of Hardy Myers. He was the epitome of a public servant. Hardy's public service career had an auspicious beginning as president of the Portland City Planning Commission in 1973, where he guided the development and approval of the downtown plan that didn't just win awards, it set Portland on a path to a revitalized central city. He was elected to the State legislature in 1974, where I was privileged to work with him for two sessions. We served on the revenue committee together, and I was on the judiciary committee which he chaired with remarkable precision and productivity. The same skill and civility that was his hallmark led to his being elected for two terms as speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, providing steady, thoughtful leadership during trying times for our State. Leaving the legislature, Hardy was not content to merely continue his legal practice at Stoel Rives, where he was for over 30 years. The list of his volunteer boards and commissions that he combined with his work and elected service is too extensive to mention in full. His contributions, usually in a leadership role, included criminal justice, sentencing guidelines, transportation, and government reform. Hardy capped off his career by serving 12 years as Oregon's attorney general, with a side trip as elected member of Portland's metropolitan, popularly elected regional government. As attorney general, he held the office with distinction, serving with great skill and commanding the respect and admiration of the State's lawyers. He gained national recognition from his fellow attorneys general for distinguished leadership. I had the pleasure to hear Hardy argue and win a case before the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure as attorney general, Oregon won all six cases it brought to our Nation's highest court. He was a superb legislator and legal scholar who successfully ran for office and won nine tough campaigns. Hardy never really got the attention his work warranted due to his thoughtful, understated service and personality, but all who served and worked with him were profoundly impressed with his professionalism, intellect, temperament, and quality of service. This, of course, was just the public side of Hardy. He was gracious, warm, funny, and deeply and passionately committed to his family, his church, and his community. I only wish that I could be there in person Wednesday morning as friends, family, and admirers gather at All Saints Church--a place that played a central role in the Myers family--to pay tribute to this remarkable man. Our hearts and sympathy go out to Mary Ann; his three sons, Hardy, III, Chris, and Jon; his 10 grandchildren; and his great grandchild. We thank them for sharing this remarkable citizen with all Oregonians. Our State is better as a result of his extraordinary service as were all of us who were privileged to know him as friend.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the Conference Report to Accompany S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Roll No. 600). Though the legislation contains several provisions that I support, and I commend the House and Senate Armed Services Committee for tackling some difficult issues, I am concerned about many components of the bill, including the continued use of a budgetary gimmick to avoid making the tough decisions we need to make about our defense spending. This NDAA includes $67.8 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, which isn't subject to budget caps, and $8.3 billion of this funding would go to base defense budget operations. Congress and the Administration should not be able to use the account, initially used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to pad their budgets in an era of fiscal uncertainty. The legislation also keeps intact funding for several unnecessary and outdated weapons programs and includes extraneous funding, unsolicited by the Navy, for an amphibious ship replacement program known as the LX (R). The legislation also maintains prohibitions on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and on transferring any detainees to the United States. It's past time that we closed this military prison. Finally, it's concerning that the bill includes new language that marks a significant shift in U.S. missile defense policy which dates back to 1999. This adjustment could cement U.S. proliferation of nuclear weapons, while sending a counterproductive signal to other countries. There are provisions of this legislation that I support. I've fought to defend and strengthen the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program since I helped establish the program with my colleagues in 2009. This legislation extends the program through 2020 and authorizes an additional 1,500 visas for our allies. Though the bill, unfortunately, restricts the eligibility of applicants--eligibility requirements that I sought to remove from the legislation when it was being considered by the House--I look forward to continue fighting for the viability of the program next year. I'm also glad that we're taking a small step towards cost accountability with the bill's transparency requirements for the Air Force's new B-21 bomber. I offered an amendment to have the Department of Defense disclose the total cost of the bomber program in the House version of the bill. Though I cannot support this legislation, I will continue to support our armed forces, while fighting for reductions in the bloated defense budget.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, day by day we are learning more about the future Trump administration, and as the picture becomes clearer, usually the news is troubling. One of the most unsettling indications about the Trump administration and the Republican Party is the abandonment of a half century of bipartisan foreign policy regarding Israel and our commitment to a two- state solution. Israel has no greater friend in the world than the United States, but one of the ways to demonstrate friendship is to be clear when your friends are making mistakes. Settlement activity by Israel on the West Bank and the renewed destruction of Palestinian homes and confiscation of property are mistakes. The overwhelming majority of Israelis still favor a two-state solution, they just despair of it being possible. The steps the Netanyahu government is taking on that path make it more remote. Donald Trump and the Republican Party he dominated at the Republican Convention abandoned the two-state solution. For the first time in a half century, the bipartisan commitment to a two-state solution has been stripped from the Republican Party platform. This matters. Donald Trump has empowered two of the most extreme voices, who have emboldened and defended settlement activity and undercut the necessary two-state solution, to manage his policy advice on Israel. This should be disturbing for everyone concerned about Middle East peace. The world is a complicated and dangerous place. There are hints that Donald Trump is starting to learn about this complexity in fits and starts. Witness his statements after visiting with President Obama and his walking back some of his most extreme and definitive campaign promises. It is important that the reality in the Middle East catches up sooner rather than later. A prime example is the Iranian nuclear agreement, one of the few things that China, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States all agreed upon. It is not perfect, and there are certainly Iranian leaders who are dangerous people, but this agreement was the best alternative and the only thing that all these parties could agree upon. Now, it is easy to talk on the campaign trail about blowing it up; it is harder to do in reality when it is actually working as it was supposed to and, in fact, is supported even by an overwhelming majority of American Jewish voters. We all have responsibility for a thoughtful foreign policy, and Democrats must stand firm to reject some of the reckless proposals from the Trump administration; but our Republican friends in Congress should not allow a half century of bipartisan foreign policy to become a casualty of some of the most extreme voices of American and Israeli politics. The time to speak out is now. Everyone must find their voice. Failure to support a two-state solution and reject the misguided settlement efforts which would make that solution impossible is a prescription for more pain, unrest, and violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Middle East peace should not be a casualty of the American election.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak this evening and for his thoughtfulness in organizing this conversation and inviting others of our colleagues to come forward. Mr. Speaker, I think it is so important to be able to put a human face on an issue that sometimes gets lost in the rhetoric. We have had a lot of rhetoric this last year. The fears that were stoked by the campaign with harsh words about immigrants, people of different religions, people who would be at risk of deportation, to maybe having a registry, having denial based on people's religions or what their perceived religions might be has sent shock waves, but it is nothing compared to what I have experienced in the days immediately after the election. People who were apprehensive and concerned are terrified--children unsure about whether parents will be there when they come home from school, people who are concerned about whether they will be able to have employment. It is not just people who may not have their documents in order. This touches millions of Americans who are part of extended families, who are part of families in the workplace. I was honored to be part of a fundraising event 2 weeks ago that was hosted by Oregon's wine industry. We came together in a lavish fundraising dinner and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the health care for the employees in their vineyards. Now, they are not asking about their documentation. They understand that there may be some who are questionable, but they are not seeking in terms of what people's histories are. They have people here who have worked with them for years who are like family and who are connected to the community. The notion of sending these young people back, who, as you and our other colleagues have pointed out, came here as children--they didn't have any choice. What 4-year-old, 3-year-old, 2-year-old infant is making this perilous journey on their own? They were brought here. They were raised here. Many of these young people, as you have already had testimony this evening, have had amazing records of success. They took the United States Government and its President at his word and came forward and took a little bit of a risk because they wanted to be part of the fabric of this country. They are in this situation, sadly, because of a failure of will by my Republican friends in the House. As the gentleman knows, he was here when we had an opportunity to vote on comprehensive immigration reform that passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. It wasn't a great bill, but it was an important step forward, on a bipartisan basis, that would have prevented some of this confusion, some of this pain, and some of this uncertainty. If the Republican leadership had allowed it to come to the floor for a vote, they wouldn't have had to twist any arms. There would have been more than enough votes on both sides of the aisle to enact it. That failure of courage stoked part of this hateful campaign that we have all experienced and has kept these unfortunate people and their families and friends--whether they are citizens, employees, they're part of the community--under a cloud. This is a failure of the House of Representatives that has created this situation. We should not, as a country, compound it by raising the specter of decent, hardworking, young people who are here through no act of their own, who have taken a step forward, a little risk to try and integrate into our society, who are high performing. I could give examples tonight of a young man who is completing his dental studies at the Oregon Health & Science University, a DREAMer who dreams big about serving his community as a professional dealing with dental health. There is a young woman who is a human resource professional at the largest school district in our State, who isn't just adding her competence, but is being able to provide opportunities to deal with some of the real serious human resource questions from first-line experience. We could all do this if we tried. Representative O'Rourke, I deeply appreciate your bringing this forward. I think it would be a tragedy if we were to punish people who took the President at his word, who put confidence in this Congress, to unwind this unfortunate situation. But I think it is important that all of us add our voices, that we connect with the people at home who are desperate, apprehensive, and vulnerable, to be able to make sure the American public knows what is at stake; because if we add our voices, our examples, and engage them, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be enough public pressure to prevent a tragedy of immense proportions.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of Representatives passed unanimously H. Con. Res. 165, a resolution reaffirming the longstanding United States policy in support of a bilaterally- negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our continued opposition to United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing a solution to the conflict. To be clear, though only the parties themselves can agree to end the conflict, the United States has engaged in efforts to create better conditions for peace, beyond bilateral negotiations. The United Nations Security Council has also played a useful role in acknowledging harmful actions, rhetoric or policies of both parties to the conflict. The December 2000 parameters under President Bill Clinton, the 2002 Road Map under President George W. Bush and the United Nations Security Council non-binding resolutions 242 and 338 all provided suggestions for bridging differences between the parties, without imposing a solution to the conflict. There is a nuanced role for the international community to play in fostering the context for peace and enabling the parties to directly negotiate a two-state solution. We should not lose sight of this critical objective.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my friend from Pennsylvania, acknowledging his hard work in the mental health sphere. I do think that this is setting the platform for the most significant initiative in the next half century. There are some good things in this bill, but I hope it is just the beginning. I know the gentleman has a number of other initiatives that he is working on in a bipartisan way, and I am hopeful that this Bill serves as a springboard. On a personal note, the Garrett Smith Suicide Prevention Act, was created by our former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, who took a personal tragedy in his family and moved forward with important legislation that other families may be spared by that effort. There are a number of things here that matter in another context. In terms of what happens dealing with the opioid crisis that we have now, America has been too slow to respond. I am hopeful that these resources will help us move in the right direction. Again, I must, I suppose, note with a certain amount of irony that there are other alternatives available to deal with the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. I would note that it is interesting that States that actually utilize medical marijuana prescribe fewer pills. There is an opportunity here for us to do something that is less expensive, less addictive, and not deadly. But the provisions in this bill, I think, are a step in the right direction. It also is important to note the investments in neuroscience. We have created a Neuroscience Caucus in Congress because this is an area that has stubbornly resisted being able to have the progress that we have seen in other areas, like cancer and cardiac health, and building on an initiative that the administration has, developed the BRAIN Initiative, which is modest but potentially very significant to accelerate the understanding of the human brain, leading to new ways to treat and cure neurological disorders. Everybody in this Chamber knows a variety of people who suffer-- everything from Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, addiction problem--and being able to double down those investments in a more systematic way will pay dividends that are incalculable. Already, mental and behavioral disorders are among the leading causes of disability around the world. The impact is greater than heart disease and cancer combined. As I mentioned, where we have actually made some progress. Last but not least, there is a technical fix that matters in my community and others around the country, which is bringing fairness to hospitals. When Congress changed the hospital payment rules last November, there were hospitals like Oregon Health & Science University that were caught unfairly in the middle of payment changes. We did not provide any exceptions for hospital outpatient departments that were under development at that time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this means that hospitals like Oregon Health & Science University, who made significant investments in building off-site departments under one set of Medicare rules, suddenly faced a new set of rules that were changed by Congress midstream. I am pleased that this will prevent pulling the rug out from underneath them. So, in sum, Mr. Speaker, this technical fix, which is important, support for the BRAIN Initiative, the important work in mental health, and dealing with the opioid crisis are reasons that I think this bill is worthy of support, although I share the concerns of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), whose underlying, bipartisan, very important bill somehow is a casualty of this legislation. That is unfortunate. I hope the rule is defeated so we can fix that and get on with business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for today's votes on the amendments to H.R. 5982, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Conyers Amendment (Roll no. 581), ``yea'' on the Jackson-Lee Amendment (Roll no. 582), and ``yea'' on the Connolly En Bloc Amendment (Roll no. 583). I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit (Roll no. 584), which would add an exemption to the underlying bill for any rule that pertains to improving employment, job retention, or the quality of the workforce. I would have voted ``nay'' on the final passage of H.R. 5982 (Roll no. 585). Should it become law, H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to allow for the en bloc disapproval of all regulations finalized near the end of presidential terms, jeopardizing important public protections affecting public health, safety, and the environment. Had I been present for the vote on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5711 (Roll no. 586), which would have prohibited the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing a transaction by any U.S. financial institution engaged in business with a foreign entity that has been found to have engaged in or authorized cyber-attacks targeting any election held in the United States, I would have voted ``yea''. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on Final Passage of H.R. 5711 (Roll no. 587), a bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing certain transactions by a U.S. financial institution in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran, I would have voted ``nay.'' I oppose H.R. 5711, which would undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement reached between Iran, the United States and five other countries designed to force Iran to back away from the nuclear threshold. I celebrate the agreement--that Iran is complying, that the U.S. can benefit, and that we have an opportunity to strengthen ties with a former enemy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion to Order the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 5711 and H.R. 5982, I would have voted ``no.'' Had the Motion to Order the Previous Question failed, Ms. Slaughter would have been able to offer her amendment to the Rule, which would have made in order Mr. Sarbanes' bill H.R. 6324. H.R. 6324 is important legislation that would amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to prevent registered lobbyists from serving on Presidential Transition Teams. Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 921, I would have voted ``no.'' H. Res. 921 is the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 5711, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing certain transactions by a U.S. financial institution in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and H.R. 5982, the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016. I oppose these bills.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, Congressman Cicilline, and 158 others in urging President-elect Trump to dismiss the notion of Steve Bannon as being stationed outside the Oval Office. I have been deeply disturbed by the increase in hate speech and intimidation directed at people based on color, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, as well as outbreaks of violence. Oregon's largest school district just sent a message home with the children dealing with families because of the problems there and the need to unite to prevent further activity. One thing we can all agree on is that the protection of all our citizens, especially our children, is not a partisan issue. Violence and destruction of public property accomplishes nothing. I hope we can agree to send a loud, direct, forceful, and clear message rejecting intimidation, harassment, and hate speech; and we can start by rejecting Steve Bannon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I appreciate the statement that she just made a moment ago in opposing the rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on just one area, which is H.R. 5711, designed to prohibit the transaction with Iran. I couldn't agree more with my friend on the other side of the aisle, who is managing this issue for the Republicans, in that we ought to put America's interests first. That is why the overwhelming majority of independent experts agreed with the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action, which was designed to make it harder and less likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons. Now, who is going to forget Benjamin Netanyahu before us and others who were hysterical that Iran was just months away from a nuclear breakout and the threat that that posed? I, for one, agree that I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I think that would be horrific. It is wrong to put nuclear weapons in their hands with the other cascading effects that could occur if they were to obtain nuclear weapons. That is why the United States--Secretary Kerry--and five other countries worked with us to use the power of our sanctions and international cooperation to make that nuclear breakout less likely. And what has happened since that agreement was signed and entered into? As a practical matter, Iran has complied with what it said it would do, and that nuclear threshold for Iran's having the potential of generating nuclear weapons has grown longer. They have reduced the number of centrifuges--less nuclear fissile material. This is what we wanted, and they have done it. To this point, they have complied. We have complied, for example, by giving them back their own money that was frozen as a result of the events of the Iranian Revolution. This avenue of trying to undermine the agreement--and make no mistake, Republican leadership and a Trump administration is likely to try to overturn it altogether--will continue a pattern of mismanagement by the United States of our relationship with one of the oldest civilizations in the Middle East. This goes back over 3,000 years. Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. They have their own interests, their own identity. It is twice as large as Iraq and Afghanistan, more populous, more sophisticated. Pretending that we are going to attack them, as some of the people that Mr. Trump is considering for key positions have favored, would be a nightmare. Remember, the United States overthrew the popularly elected leader of Iran, working with the British in 1953, and installed the Shah on the throne. The United States sided with Saddam Hussein, who we thought was so evil that we upset the order in the Middle East and undertook that disastrous war. We sided with him as he used weapons of mass destruction against the Iranians. Now, who would blame the Iranians, given our history, for not being friendly toward the United States? The fact is--and it can be verified by friends of yours who may have visited Iran--that it is actually the country whose people have the most positive feelings toward the United States. After 9-11, there were candlelight vigils in Tehran in sympathy with Americans who were attacked. Now, many people have a cartoon image of the Iranian situation. It is complex. There are some very bad people in power in Iran, and we need to stand up to them. Many of those people want this deal to fail, just like some hardliners in the United States want it to fail. I don't think we should serve their interests. Preventing the United States to follow through on this agreement, for example, with enabling them to purchase Boeing planes, not giving us over $17 billion in business, not putting over 100,000 Americans to work and building relationships, I think, is foolish.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in fact, if the agreement falls apart and the sanctions collapse, they will get their planes. They will just buy Airbus planes, not Boeing. Most importantly, we will be undermining an opportunity to use diplomacy to make the world safer. I have been appalled how difficult it is for us to focus on the big picture. Absolutely push back at some of the bad guys. Stand up to problems that they create. We just reinstituted the sanctions against misbehavior by Iran, and I voted for that yesterday. But don't undermine an agreement that is working--Iran has already got much of what they wanted out of this deal. If we undermine it, they can walk away. They have got some money, and they can have world opinion on their side and go ahead and develop nuclear weapons. That is crazy. We ought to abide by our agreements. We ought to stand up to them where they are wrong. We ought to promote interaction where we can. We ought to work with the very vibrant Iranian American community, which I hope Donald Trump doesn't deport. They are law-abiding, very effective citizens in the United States. We ought to be working with them to work for the cause of international peace, strengthening the American economy while we make all of us make nuclear weapons less likely and strengthen international cooperation. It was a signal achievement to have China, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, and France work with us on this agreement. We should not undercut it. We should honor it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as National Community Planning Month. This year's theme, ``Civic Engagement,'' acknowledges that thoughtful local planning cannot happen without meaningful community involvement. National Community Planning Month provides an opportunity to recognize the essential role that planning plays in creating communities of lasting value. Planning is the formal process of envisioning, mapping, and guiding how a community will look, grow, and define itself--its characteristics, attributes, and identity. As our communities continue to change and evolve, planners work to ensure that new developments are designed and built in harmony with existing surroundings. Planners carefully balance the needs and desires of residents against the challenges presented by physical, economic, and social change. Planners strive to give citizens choices. From the types of homes we live in to how we choose to get around, planning helps ensure that we address the needs of everyone. A diverse and vibrant community is one that offers transportation and housing choices that are equitable and sustainable. In my home state of Oregon, our commitment to planning became an official part of our state policy structure in 1973 with the passage of Senate Bill 100. We developed a strong planning program with nineteen Statewide Planning Goals, including promoting citizen involvement, stimulating economic development, and preserving ocean resources. Over forty years later, the ``Oregon Story'' of economic growth, sustainability, and deliberate development is as compelling as ever. I've worked very closely with the planners that have written that story and guided our region's growth, integrating statewide policies with the needs and interests of local communities. As founder of the Congressional Livable Communities Task Force and Co-Chair of the Congressional Bike Caucus, I've sought to bring that understanding to Congress. From rebuilding and renewing America's infrastructure, protecting natural and urban resources, to supporting programs that enhance public health, we must find ways to improve the federal partnership with those who are engaged in the day-to-day work of creating livable communities. Planners are the gatekeepers of that partnership, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting National Community Development Month.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable travel delays, I missed two roll call votes. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 985, the Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Act of 2015, as amended (Roll Call No. 575), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill will allow concrete masonry producers to establish a ``check-off'' program at the Department of Commerce. This coordinated program will fund research, education and promotion to improve, maintain and develop markets for concrete masonry products. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 2669, the Anti-Spoofing Act (Roll Call No. 576), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill will extend the prohibition on transmitting inaccurate caller ID information to anyone located in the United States--including through Voice-over- Internet (VolP) calls or text messages sent to mobile phones. Current law only covers voice calls.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the House on its adoption of the Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contributions Act, which directs the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis to assess and analyze the U.S. outdoor recreation economy and the effects attributable to it on the overall U.S. economy. In Oregon and across the country, an increasing number of Americans enjoy recreating outdoors. In fact, at least two-thirds of Oregonians participate in outdoor recreation each year. From the magnificent Columbia River Gorge to trails and creeks throughout our forests, canyons, and deserts, these open spaces and recreation areas are vital to individuals, families, businesses, and communities. Outdoor recreation opportunities in Oregon and nationwide support healthy communities, create jobs, generate tax revenue, and support a high quality of life. Americans spend $646 billion per year on outdoor recreation gear, vehicles, trips, and more. In Oregon, outdoor recreation generates over $12 billion in consumer spending, tens of thousands of jobs, and $4 billion in wages and salaries. Additionally, supporting sustainable outdoor recreation can also help protect important ecological, watershed, and fish and wildlife values that underpin high quality recreation experiences. Outdoor recreation is vitally important to Oregonians and Oregon's economy, and this legislation will provide us with the information needed to guide our land and water policy to support this important industry.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night, several hundred people gathered to wish Sam Farr farewell to his congressional career, celebrating a half century of public service. Sam started in the Peace Corps, volunteering in Colombia in the sixties. He was active as a local government official, and in the California State legislature and finally 23 years in Congress. He came by his calling honestly. He was born on the Fourth of July. Son of Fred Farr, a State senator and a Johnson administration official, Sam has been dedicated to the widest range of issues of anybody I have worked with in my years in Congress. He has worked on issues of livable communities, transportation, land use planning, and healthy agriculture. He took very seriously the fact that he represented California's ``salad bowl.'' He has been a leader in marijuana reform, with the famous Farr-Rohrabacher amendment slapping the Federal Government's hands back from interfering with medical marijuana. You know, there is a movie from 1983 with Woody Allen. In ``Zelig,'' this kind of nebbish chameleon-like person showed up everywhere in all of these important events in the twenties and thirties. Well, Sam has sort of that characterization. Although, unlike a nebbish or chameleon, Sam was bold, he was infectious, he was warm, but he was everywhere in the course of the last 20 years. Just this last year alone, we saw the unprecedented oceans protections that were implemented by the Obama administration. Sam Farr's fingerprints are all over that act, working for 20 years on oceans protections as the major oceans advocate in Congress. Sam was in Cuba with President Obama as we opened up relations with that island after a half century of isolation. He has been on the right side of that issue from the beginning. Luckily, he was able to be there. He has been honored by the nation of Colombia, where he served as a Peace Corps volunteer. Last weekend, Sam was there with Secretary Kerry, celebrating the peace accords that brought an end to that tortuous conflict. You know, people complain about Congress being too partisan, too gridlocked. It is true. But for 23 years, Sam Farr has shown that no matter who is in charge or how bad it gets, a smart person with a big heart, a great staff, persistence, and passion can make amazing things happen. He has given many gifts to his constituents and to the Nation, but one gift may be overarching, if people here take seriously, is his example of how to be a Congressman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I fully sympathize with the families of 9/11 victims and understand their desire to hold people accountable for that horrific, senseless, cruel attack. This sympathy, understandably, prompted many of my colleagues to approve S. 2040 when it was first before Congress. Yet, I am convinced that the Presidential veto of this legislation should be upheld. Everyone should read his veto message on S. 2040 to understand the complications and the risks. We already have a mechanism to deal with state-sponsored terrorism--a mechanism to pursue it. When it is designated, we have very strong sanctions that we can employ. The purpose of such a mechanism is to ensure those sanctions and other steps are brought to bear only after there has been a careful review that establishes state-sponsored terrorism. In the case of this legislation, the authority is transferred, not just to the attorneys of the 9/11 families, but to any individual who wants to file a lawsuit. This opens the United States up to a wide range of repercussions that could have negative consequences for Americans. Not only would it potentially compromise our security efforts and our diplomatic relationships, but it also invites retaliation by other countries. Millions of Americans travel overseas every year and hundreds of thousands of Americans work overseas including soldiers and diplomats, all of whom could now be subjected to harsher activities by other governments without the due process afforded by the United States government. It's not just that we could have foreign action against American assets, but foreign action against Americans. I think the President's veto decision is wise, and I support it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. I appreciate his courtesy and I appreciate his focus on the challenges inherent with the legislation we have before us. If people want to understand why we are having problems under the Affordable Care Act, this is a great example. Every single major piece of legislation, to my knowledge, landmark legislation, has required fine tuning and modification. That has generally been the spirit where people in both parties move forward to try and deal with occasional oversights, areas to improve mistakes, and opportunities to make it better. What we have seen for 6 years under the Affordable Care Act is that there has been an entirely different mind-set. It was to try and make it worse. It was to try and undercut it. I think my count is that this is the 65th time there has been an attempt to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act. It is pretty stark what this has produced. We have--and it is unassailable--the lowest uninsured rate in America right now. In fact, some of the 19 States that have refused the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, even there has been a reduction because of the availability of subsidies to help make it affordable. The insurance policies that people have are fundamentally better. You can no longer deny coverage for preexisting conditions. I thought at the time that Members of Congress should have declared a conflict of interest because I think virtually all of us would have been subjected to problems getting insurance if they were denied on the basis of preexisting conditions. What we have seen from the outset is that people refused during the legislative process itself to be able to have the give-and-take of a conference committee. Because Republicans refused to legislate, it had to be adopted under the reconciliation process. And then for 6 consecutive years, no refinement, no adjustment, just steadily chipping away. Now, I have a couple of CO-OPs in my district. Those were an interesting addition to try and add some additional competition in a model that would not be for-profit insurance. They were given, under the existing legislation, access to a risk corridor to try and even out premiums because we knew it would be impossible with all of the moving pieces for people to be able to very precisely determine exactly what the rates should be. So there was some give, there was some adjustment, for the risk corridors to be able to have additional resources for people who hadn't quite gotten it right. That was envisioned under the initial act. It was something that insurance companies in Oregon thought that Congress would keep its word. They planned accordingly. Unfortunately, the junior Senator, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rubio), in the 2014 omnibus stripped out that language. It really didn't get the attention that it deserved at the time, and that was a big piece of legislation that was rumbling through, pressed for time, and not given the real authoritative give- and-take and attention that it deserved. But that took away money that those people had been promised, that they needed, and were depending on. So we precipitated a crisis, like we have seen with other areas with attacking the Affordable Care Act. We see the 19 States that have refused Medicaid expansion under a relatively tortured interpretation of the Supreme Court. Nobody that I know of, when we were voting on the Affordable Care Act, thought that States would be able to voluntarily deny health care to people who were too poor to qualify for the subsidies; but, amazingly, 19 States have done that. That is another area of instability that has posed problems with insurance markets. States that actually did expand have seen less of the upheaval. It brings us to today where people are chipping away again in this effort with a piece of legislation that is absolutely unnecessary to repeal part of the individual mandate. The individual mandate, by the way, was put in the Affordable Care Act as part of an effort to forge a bipartisan solution. Bear in mind, the mandate that people purchase insurance was not a Democratic idea. It was something that was part of the Republican alternative to HillaryCare in the early 1990s. But it makes sense to have a mandate so that these burdens are shared broadly and everybody benefits. Well, there is no reason to get rid of the individual mandate. These people who are in a failed CO-OP already have--because under current law, if you have a plan that closed midyear, you are already allowed a special enrollment period to choose new coverage. And if there are any individuals for whom coverage is unaffordable or they experience a hardship, they may qualify for an existing exemption from the individual responsibility provision. So this is already taken care of under existing law. What it is doing is continuing this effort to chip away, to undermine, to repeal. I hope that we get past this notion that we are going to continue to make the primary Republican alternative for health care just trying to attack something that is working; and if they would cooperate, if they would refine, if they would try and solve problems rather than creating new ones, we could make it work even better. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this piece of--I don't know what to call it. It is not going to be enacted into law. It shouldn't be enacted into law. It represents an empty exercise of stalling and attacking instead of refining and improving. The American people deserve better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3537. No doubt many of these substances are horrific, and none of us wants to see people abusing them. DEA can act on these drugs, has a process to do it, and should start down that path immediately. However, if we are going to deal with Schedule I, the first thing we should do is eliminate marijuana from Schedule I, which enabled the failed policy of prohibition. Political interference is what got us here in the first place, and we should fix it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, currently, in the House Judiciary Committee, there is an unusual spectacle unfolding. Now, a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it a crusade to war against the IRS. They have cut staff, budgets, refused to help it collect money that is due and owed. They have made it easier for cheats to avoid their obligations. But this assault on the IRS Commissioner takes that war to a new low. I would invite anybody listening to this presentation right now to go to the internal channel in the House, number 42, or go to cspan.org to be able to watch it yourself. Walk down to Room 2237 Rayburn and watch this play out. I have had a chance to get to know John Koskinen, the IRS Commissioner, over the course of this last year, and I have come to respect and admire him. I would suggest to anybody trying to put this in context, trying to understand the give-and-take, google Mr. Koskinen, and then google some of his fiercest critics who are going to be on display at the Judiciary Committee today. Which of his critics would you imagine to be entrusted with being the chair of the board of trustees for their prestigious university, should they have attended one? Mr. Koskinen was. Which of them would have been successful in business as a turnaround artist in some of the most difficult and challenging commercial transactions? Mr. Koskinen was. And then walk away from material and business success to volunteer for some of the most challenging jobs in Government? Mr. Koskinen did. Which of these members of the Judiciary Committee that are attacking Mr. Koskinen would have been picked by a President of their own party to take some of the most challenging and difficult and important tasks? Mr. Koskinen was. The Y2K czar, when we were concerned about what would happen in the year 2000 and the integrity of computer systems; Mr. Koskinen was administrator for the District of Columbia when that city was turned around. Which of them would have been asked by a President of the other party to step in and handle a major systemic challenge? The IRS Commissioner, a Democrat, was asked by the Bush administration to step in and right the ship of Freddie Mac during the near meltdown of the global economy. And he came back, volunteering for one of the most difficult tasks in government, to deal with an IRS that has been underfunded, understaffed, while Congress makes its job almost impossible by making the Tax Code more complex each and every year. John Koskinen did. Google the people who are attacking him and see if any of them have accomplishments that are remotely equal to what this distinguished American did and has done and continues to do. This is a shameful display. This gentleman is being attacked for things that predated his tenure, not high crimes and misdemeanors and corruption, but because they don't like what went on there, and they are trying to find somebody to blame other than themselves. Look at what is going on in the Judiciary Committee. Google these people; evaluate for yourselves. The American people deserve better than what is going on now, and certainly, Mr. Koskinen does.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of James ``JJ'' Hurtado, a victim of gun violence killed at age 14 in Hermiston, Oregon, by his mother's ex-boyfriend, who never received a moment of silence or moment of action on the House floor.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 847, a resolution expressing support for a national strategy for the ``Internet of Things'' to promote economic growth and consumer empowerment (Roll Call Number 496), I would have voted ``aye.'' The Internet of Things is the platform for existing and emerging technologies that are revolutionizing everyday life, from self-driving cars to ``smart homes,'' where lighting, temperature, and security can be controlled and monitored from a phone. A national strategy can help guide this technology to meet goals of sustainability, equity, and economic growth. Likewise, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 835, a resolution expressing support for a national policy for technology to promote consumer access to financial tools and online commerce (Roll Call Number 497), I would have voted ``aye.'' With nearly a third of the U.S. population underbanked or unbanked, it is critical that we focus emerging technology development to provide additional support, financial tools, and security to consumers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for permitting me to add my voice to this discussion. I think we are all deeply concerned about impacts that we have on our constituents, whether it is in terms of tax, expenses in terms of health care, or challenges in their day-to-day life. What is deeply concerning to me is an inability for us to step back and look at these things in a broader context to be able to prioritize and deal with these items in a way that actually provides some sense of balance. Now, I will be the first to admit that I had some reservations about some of the funding elements that were part of the Affordable Care Act. I would not have used exactly the same structure, but bear in mind that the investment in the Affordable Care Act has provided significant healthcare subsidies for millions of Americans, which my friend and colleague, Congressman Levin, can go through in great detail. But what we are looking at here are three problems. One, if this bill were to move forward, it would invest $33 billion, either added to the deficit or cutting other programs. Now, I think it is important to bear in mind that this Congress has been tied in knots, unable to come up with a billion or two to deal with the Zika crisis, the infections that are taking place, the potential of an epidemic starting in places like Florida and Puerto Rico, but putting people at risk around the country. This is an immediate healthcare crisis. Congress is paralyzed, and we can't come up with a billion or two, let alone $33 billion over the next 10 years. We have watched, on an ongoing basis, people picking away at items of the Affordable Care Act, which was developed as a comprehensive package that had things that some people supported, some people were opposed, but collectively was able to provide these benefits that resulted in having the lowest uninsured rate in American history. We are watching people starting to try and pick away at elements here that either add to the deficit or undermine the integrity of the Affordable Care Act. Now, one of the things that has been frustrating for me is that we had a complete collapse of the legislative process. There were many things that we could have done to refine and improve the Affordable Care Act. Nobody would have designed the bill exactly like it went through, but that is what happened when the Senate Republicans stopped legislating, and we used the reconciliation package to take what we had, enable it to go forward with the expectation over the course of the last 6 years we would be working together to refine it, like we have done with every single major piece of social legislation in our history. We work on it. None of these things are perfect. We refine it. We look at the changes that can come forward and try to improve it for the American people. That has not been what has happened in the 6 years that my Republican friends have been in charge of the House of Representatives. I have deep affection and respect for my friend, Mr. Tiberi. We work on lots of things together. One thing we haven't been able to work on in 6 years is an opportunity to refine the Affordable Care Act, to be able to work together cooperatively to build on it. We have had an agenda. I lost track at 65 the number of times the votes were to repeal it, not to be able to work together.