Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But to repeal it and to get rid of it, to try to highlight--in fact, there were a number of votes that have taken place to actually make it worse, to have a bigger impact on low- and moderate-income families, have a bigger cliff for people who have changes in their economic circumstances, to have a larger penalty rather than smoothing, refining, and making it better. We have an opportunity to be able to deal meaningfully with things that will improve the health of the American people. If we don't agree on the refinement of the Affordable Care Act--I am hoping that we might have a more responsible and slightly better Congress next time, but there are things we could do right now in areas of medical research. I mentioned Zika. We have opportunities to move forward. This takes off the top something that has been in the legislation for some time that focuses one element, but doesn't improve the quality of health care; that doesn't deal with refining and strengthening the Affordable Care Act; that doesn't deal with the crisis of Zika; doesn't beef up medical research. We have many priorities. We have many opportunities. The easiest thing in the world to do is come in and try to cut taxes, add more deductions, make changes, particularly if we are not going to pay for those changes, if we are just going to add to the deficit greater borrowing for the future. This is cotton candy. This is not serious legislation. There are no tradeoffs involved here. It is just making it out of whole cloth, moving forward and letting somebody else bear the consequences. I don't think that is what we should be doing. I do think there are people who are serious about reducing the deficit. I think there are people who are serious about improving health care for the American people. There are people who are deadly serious about dealing with the Zika crisis. There are things that we could be doing cooperatively to make things better and focus on priorities. This bill is not that. This bill is cotton candy, unpaid for; cut taxes and let the consequences fall to somebody else. I think we can do better. I hope we do better. I hope people get this out of their system and make their point. I understand it. In a perfect world, there are things that we would have done differently.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow my good friend, Dr. Murphy, on the floor. I appreciate his tireless efforts in terms of mental health and of suicide prevention. I was pleased this week to introduce with him legislation to recognize September as National Suicide Prevention Month. We have this ritual of designating certain days, weeks, and months in honor of issues that can be momentous and sometimes arcane, but this one is existential. We are looking at a time of great division not just in Congress but in American society. Suicide prevention ought to be a great unifier. We lose five lives every hour to a cause that is usually treatable and often preventable. The nature of the suicide epidemic, which has been increasing every year for the last decade, has the power to unite and bring people together to make a difference. I applaud him for his work on the mental health legislation. I hope that we are all encouraged and emboldened, particularly as relates to our veterans, and his work there is commendable. We are losing a veteran almost every hour to suicide. It is also the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 34, yet people who commit suicide almost always show symptoms that could be diagnosed and treated. In addition to the tragic disruption on individuals and families, it is estimated that suicide results in $44 billion in combined economic and work costs. It is a national crisis and a tragedy that has touched almost every family I know. The area of suicide prevention is one of shared passions that can contribute to solutions. For mental health professionals, it is rich with possibilities. If you are concerned about gun violence, this is an area of opportunity. Those who attempt suicide with a firearm are successful about 85 percent of the time. Drug and alcohol abuse is a factor in many cases. Due to the underlying substance abuse or issues, individual actions can be clouded by the influence of drug or alcohol when suicide is attempted. There is a role for each and every one of us to play as advocates, as individuals, for treatment and suicide prevention counseling, recovery, and to support the grief of the family members left behind. I am excited about the network of organizations across the country, often with major volunteer input, who are making a difference. I visited one recently in my community, Lines for Life, that has volunteers manning 24-hour phone lines to help people in a time of crisis. It is overseen by licensed clinicians. This one volunteer-driven organization handles nearly 55,000 calls per year, offering immediate assistance to people who want to overcome substance abuse, prevent suicide, and find treatment for happier, more productive lives. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will, in fact, designate September as Suicide Prevention Month, but that every month will be Suicide Prevention Month and that we will all rededicate ourselves to combating this epidemic that touches lives in every one of our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to severely restrict the use of inhumane body-gripping traps on certain public lands and by certain public officials. Countless dogs, cats, and wild animals are injured and killed each year in body-gripping traps such as leg and foothold, Conibear, and snare traps. These traps are used by federal agencies, state and 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. Unfortunately, body-gripping traps subject captured animals to intense pain--sometimes for hours or even days--before they may eventually die from dehydration, injuries, predation, or when a trapper eventually finds them. Furthermore, these traps are non-selective in their victims, and may capture and even kill non-target species such as pets and other companion animals, particularly if set in popular areas. There are many effective non-lethal methods that can be deployed in place of these cruel traps. Wildlife Services, a federal agency notorious for its secrecy and use of inhumane animal management techniques, is responsible for the death or capture of thousands of animals per year in cruel body-gripping traps, often used as a first resort. Wildlife Services also advises and enters into contracts and cooperative agreements with state and local governments, as well as with private entities, to kill animals using these traps. Other federal agencies, too, use body-gripping traps to control animal species--too often without attempting more humane, effective, and non-lethal control options first. This bill will severely limit Wildlife Services' and other agencies' ability to deploy or counsel others to deploy cruel body-gripping traps, increasing transparency for this agency and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are prioritized for nonlethal methods of control. Although trapping is regulated at the state level, federal land management agencies have oversight of where and when trapping occurs on federal land. Unfortunately, federal agencies have limited data showing where traps are deployed on public lands, thereby prolonging the suffering of trapped animals and leaving the public to learn about traps only when pets and humans are injured. The bill tackles this issue as well, making sure that federal agencies in the Departments of Agriculture and Interior do a better job of regulating trapping by non- federal entities on public lands, thereby limiting cruelty and protecting public safety. In Oregon and across the country, there have been too many concerning examples of wild animals suffering 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 should not and cannot continue to endorse the widespread use of these inhumane devices.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, to understand what is wrong with American politics, especially the dysfunctional Republican House of Representatives, look no further than the spectacle surrounding the IRS and the impeachment of its Commissioner. The Internal Revenue Service impacts 150 million American taxpayers every year, virtually every family and all legal businesses. This is how we finance essential services, from Social Security to medical research, our national defense, national parks, veterans' services, and so much more. Everything that matters to Americans depends on the ability to finance government efficiently and fairly. Look, Americans from the dawn of the Republic have chafed at paying taxes, continuing a tradition that dates back to Biblical times, and almost everybody says they hate the IRS, which is the cheapest, quickest political applause line for any politician. Yet, over the years, we have managed to collect money that allows us to win wars, struggle through depressions, and provide what used to be some of the finest public services on the face of the planet. Yes, the Internal Revenue Service administers a hopelessly complex, convoluted, and unfair Tax Code because that is what the American Congress has given them to work with. Congress created this mess and then blames the people who try to administer it. If we are ever to make the IRS better, more efficient, and fairer, it is going to require a degree of cooperation, candor, and hard work. The current spectacle of destroying the reputation of a distinguished public servant, an accomplished businessman, is going to make that task even harder. Make no mistake. The treatment of John Koskinen, with the possibility of being the first Cabinet official impeached in nearly 140 years, is not just embarrassing for the people who are perpetrating it; it represents a threat to the ability to administer the IRS. John Koskinen came to this position after a lifetime of success in business as a turnaround expert at the highest levels as well as in public service, holding senior positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Bush administration turned to him to prevent the implosion of the housing finance giant, Freddie Mac, and he spent 3 years guiding and rebuilding it. There is absolutely no evidence that he did anything wrong. The Republican inspector general, a former Republican staff member, found nothing wrong. This impeachment action is going nowhere in the Senate. It has got to be an embarrassment for the Speaker, committee chairmen, and Republicans everywhere. It only serves to highlight ideological divisions, lack of respect for due process, and the exaggerated power of the Republican echo chamber of rightwing talk radio. But it does more than add to disdain for the political process. It is a cloud over public service. While people claim we don't need the IRS or that our tax filing can be reduced to a postcard and that we can generate all the money we need with reduced tax rates and more exemptions, it is a fantasy that any responsible Republican businessperson or independent economist will verify. Going down this impeachment path will make it harder to recruit somebody for the hardest job in government and will only deepen the divides at a time when we need clear thinking and nonpartisan cooperation to fix a broken IRS, establish the trust and hard work to make the mechanics of revenue collection work, and avoid the breakdown of the system. This is playing with fire and should be beneath America's elected officials. Tarnishing the stellar reputation of an outstanding citizen who is doing his country a favor by volunteering to take this thankless task is simply something that should not be tolerated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 5063, a bill that would prohibit the federal government from entering into settlement agreements that include payments directed to appropriate third parties. This bill, if enacted, would defang federal civil enforcement agencies as they seek to address and provide restitution for illegal actions that threaten a community's health and safety and the environment, and to prevent the recurrence of those illegal actions. The harms caused by, for instance, violations of environmental laws, predatory lending by financial institutions, and workplace exposure to toxic chemicals, harm individuals and our communities. These harms can be difficult to adequately compensate. Settlements that only require payments to those directly harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action fails to adequately capture the full cost of unlawful conduct. For decades, the United States government has entered into settlement agreements with defendants to pay for the direct harms they have caused. In many instances, these settlements also include payments to organizations that advance programs assisting with the recovery of a community harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action. The ability of the federal government to direct payments from these settlements to third parties is often the best way to hold wrongdoers accountable for the indirect harm done to the public at large.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I emphatically voted ``no'' on House passage of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5538) last week, which was a parade of misguided provisions and poison pill policy riders that will roll back critical environmental protections and seriously harm our climate, our natural surroundings, and wildlife. We can do better than this shameful attempt at governing. We should be supporting programs to clean our air and water, protect our precious natural resources, and help us transition to a clean energy future. Instead, this legislation moves us in the opposite direction. The bill cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) operating budget and blocks spending on key programs and regulations at a time when we need greater--not fewer--resources to protect our health and guarantee clean air and clean water. This reality is particularly painful for communities like Flint, Michigan and my hometown of Portland, Oregon, where the EPA is assisting with recent air toxics and water-related crises, trying to stretch meager funding even as the stakes get higher. The legislation also continues the Republican charade of climate change denial, undermining the administration's Clean Power Plan and the President's bold commitments made to the international community at the Paris Climate Conference last year. This bill underfunds key Department of Interior agencies tasked with protecting and conserving lands and wildlife, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. It slashes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has been fundamental for protecting public land and recreation in Oregon and across the country. One of the bill's more offensive provisions blocks Presidential declarations under the Antiquities Act, eliminating the potential of a national monument in southeastern Oregon's magnificent Owyhee Canyonlands and other threatened areas of natural beauty throughout the United States. In short, the bill takes multiple steps backwards when we should be ramping up efforts to protect, conserve, and take better care of our natural world. My Republican colleagues took this opportunity to score political points by tacking on damaging policy riders that have no place in the appropriations process. These riders block funding for implementation of common sense regulations like the Well Control Rule, the Obama Administration's National Ocean Policy, the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule, to name a few. There are also riders that would stall progress we've made in preventing drilling in the Arctic Ocean, prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service from setting minimum standards for hunting on federal lands in Alaska, block federal protection of species like the iconic gray wolf and Preble's Meadow jumping Mouse, roll back the Clean Air Act and stop additional action to prevent climate change, the greatest environmental challenge of our time. Even closer to home, one proposed amendment would have blocked the historic agreement between Oregon, California, PacifiCorp, and conservation organizations to remove four dams on the Klamath River, but luckily it was not successful. This was a shameful showing by the House. While I joined my colleagues in efforts to block many of the most harmful provisions and policy riders, ultimately the Republican majority let big polluters and special interests rule the day, playing politics with what should have been an opportunity to sensibly fund important parts of the government. Our legacy should be one of conservation, careful investment in preservation of precious natural resources, and protection of human health and our fragile climate. This bill could not be more damaging to that legacy, and its passage demonstrates we must fight harder for the future our planet deserves.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Columbia River In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites Improvement Act, in partnership with some of my colleagues in the Senate. This legislation is just one part of the work we are pursuing, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and in collaboration with affected Columbia River Treaty Tribes, to improve conditions and address unmet tribal housing needs 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. Western development, including construction of the three lower Columbia River dams beginning 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, and were also promised housing to replace what was inundated after the dams became operational. That promise has largely not been kept. I'm working with my colleagues 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 the Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 helping to improve conditions at these sites and should be passed by both 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.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Vote By Mail Act of 2016. The individual right to vote is the foundation of our government, and making sure that all Americans have the ability to exercise that right is critical to the democratic process. My home state of Oregon is a leader in innovative voting rights policy, and this legislation provides a pathway for the federal government to follow Oregon's model program. Too many Americans around the country face extreme barriers to registering to vote and casting a ballot. Many voters often have work, family, or other commitments that make getting to polls and waiting in line on Election Day difficult or impossible. Many citizens with disabilities are physically unable to vote due to long lines, inadequate parking, no curb cuts, steep ramps, and large crowds. In 2012, 30 percent of voters with disabilities had difficulty voting, and more than 5,000,000 voters waited for more than an hour to cast a vote. Polling stations in rural jurisdictions tend to have higher costs per voter, smaller staffs, and limited resources. Additionally, transportation to the polls is often a difficult barrier for rural voters. Despite these impediments, many of these voters are not permitted to vote by mail in many states. Fortunately, a handful of states are addressing this problem, and three states currently hold elections entirely by mail. It's time to bring this policy to scale in all federal elections. The benefits of voting by mail are numerous and well-documented. Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their choices, which is especially important due to the expanded use of the initiative and referendum process in many states. Voting by mail is cost-effective. As shown in Oregon and Colorado, the cost of conducting vote by mail elections is generally one-third to one-half less than conducting polling place elections. Allowing all voters the option to vote by mail can reduce waiting times for those voters who choose to vote at the polls. Vote by mail also typically increases turn out in all elections, but can be particularly effective in increasing voter participation in special elections and primary elections. The Vote By Mail Act of 2016 legislation would require states to mail ballots to all registered voters in federal elections, eliminating barriers to the ballot--saving states and local governments money and saving voters time and stress across the country. Another crucial component of a modern voting system is making it easy, affordable, and accessible to register to vote, further multiplying the positive voter participation effects of a vote by mail system. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia introduced automatic voter registration legislation in 2015, and Oregon and California now automatically register their citizens to vote when they apply for a driver's license. Automatic, permanent voter registration has the potential to increase participation, protect election integrity, and reduce registration costs. This legislation would follow the Oregon example, register millions of eligible voters at little cost, and widely increase participation in American democracy. There is no better time to seamlessly expand voter registration and provide more options for Americans to vote, and the stakes have never been higher.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against S. 764, a bill that would preempt state genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling laws and replace them with a wholly inadequate federal standard. People should be able to know what they are eating. The bill before us today would exempt many genetically engineered (GE) foods from any labeling altogether and would preempt pro-consumer state laws, including the engineered food labeling laws in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine. I actively supported an effort to pass a GMO labeling law in my home state of Oregon, and I continue to support strong state efforts to stand up for transparency in the face of federal inadequacy or inaction. The bill also includes several vague standards, and its labeling requirements would allow corporations to decide how to give consumers access to GE information, including through the use of a smartphone or the internet. Making access to GE labeling information electronic and/ or dependent on a smartphone is not transparent, accessible, or available to many Americans. S. 764 has been sold as a ``compromise'' because it would require some labeling, but these provisions are clearly just a fig leaf We need plain language, mandatory, on-package labeling, and until federal law protects our right to know what we are eating, the federal government should not preempt state efforts to protect and inform their citizens. I continue to strongly support federal-level mandatory labeling for foods that contain GMOs, and I'm an original cosponsor of Rep. DeFazio's Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 913). I'll continue pushing for stronger consumer protections when it comes to food safety and will oppose any attempts to undermine these efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is sad that people are leaving this Chamber with much unfinished business, such as action on Zika, threats to drinking water, and the most important for me is the failure to take any action to stem the epidemic of gun violence that takes three to four Americans' lives every hour. Whether it is from domestic violence, mass shootings like in Orlando or Dallas, suicide, there are multiple causes, but there are things we can do to make a difference. There ought to be no more anonymous gun purchases. We need universal background checks. People who are too dangerous to buy a plane ticket should not be able to buy an assault weapon. And the outrageous prohibition that Congress has on doing research from the CDC on gun violence ought to be abolished. These provisions are overwhelmingly supported by the American public and, indeed, gun owners themselves. There is no excuse for us leaving early today, for us to be gone tomorrow, for us to be gone for the next 7 weeks. Maybe the people who are getting out of town should just be gone from the next Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I am listening to the debate and, frankly, it is interesting to have the two diametrically opposed views. This agreement a year ago was supported by a range of former Secretaries of State in both parties. It was an opportunity to move forward with our principal allies and with China and with Russia to try and make Iran less likely to develop nuclear weapons. Mercifully, the agreement is in force, and for this first year it is working. There is a reactor filled with concrete. This item here today is an example of progress that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to turn back. Under this agreement, they are required to reduce the supply of heavy water. We are purchasing heavy water from them, taking it out of their hands. At the same time, there are 14,000 fewer centrifuges that are operating in Iran and under international supervision. Why wouldn't we want to take away this essential element for the production of nuclear weapons, especially since the United States has an opportunity to purchase heavy water? As my good friend from Texas pointed out, there are many research applications for which we need heavy water. My friend, the chairman of the committee, alluded to the question: Why don't we use the North American production of heavy water? Well, the United States doesn't manufacture heavy water anymore, and Canada has stopped producing it and is selling it off. Where are we going to get the heavy water from? I think it is perfect to get it from Iran. We use it, it is beneficial to us, and it takes a potential dangerous item out of their hands. I think the House should reject yet another effort to undermine the agreement. The world is safer today than it was a year ago when Iran was a month or 2 away from creating a nuclear weapon, and it created a frenzy on the part of some of the people who are justifiably concerned about Iran. Now that breakout date is a year away and we are strengthening the potential ties. The United States has serially mismanaged its relations with Iran since we worked with the British to overthrow their popularly elected government in 1953 and install a dictator, the shah, in charge. The United States backed the murderous Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iranian war when Saddam Hussein used poisonous gas against Iran.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that Iran is one of the few countries in the Middle East where the majority of the people still like the United States, unlike some of our so-called allies over there. Admittedly, there are people in the leadership in Iran who are bad people who do bad things. The President of Iran has worked with us to try and move the ball forward. This agreement is a foundation upon which we can build. I am pleased that maybe they would buy airplanes from us rather than the French or the European Union Airbus consortium. I hope that we can get behind the reflexive opposition to this and look at the facts. I think the facts are, at a minimum, we should buy all of the heavy water from Iran we can at a market rate, get it out of their hands, and help us with our needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania. There is no requirement under the agreement that Iran cannot manufacture heavy water. There is a limit on the amount that they can possess. That is why the reserves are in storage elsewhere. The amount that we are talking about now is already being shipped to the United States as we speak. Iran has a right, under the agreement, to continue producing heavy water, which it will. Where is the heavy water going to go? They can sell it on the global market. I would rather they sell it to the United States at market price than to North Korea or to Pakistan or to some other actor. This bill is misguided and misses the point. They are not violating the agreement. We are better off in having the heavy water that we need, that we don't produce, and that Canada has stopped producing that we will be able to reinforce the possibility of having a successful agreement over time. I appreciate the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to at least clarify what I think is reality.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this month we mark the first anniversary of an historic agreement between Iran and six major world powers, including some of our key western allies, plus Russia and China. The agreement was designed to force Iran to back away from the nuclear threshold, acquiring nuclear weapons, which everyone agreed would be a disaster. Instead of sober reflection on the success of the agreement, where we are and where we are going, we will, instead, be discussing legislation that is designed to have the United States break that agreement. In a very dangerous world, that agreement has made us a little bit safer. This would be a mistake of tragic proportions to undermine it. Last year, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on this House floor, as part of his campaign to scuttle a potential agreement, warned that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons as thousands of centrifuges were whirling to enrich uranium. While today, 14,000 centrifuges have been removed from service and placed under international supervision. Iran has removed nuclear material from its once secret facility at Fordow. It has reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium from 12,000 kilograms, with a purity as high as 5 percent, to only 300 kilograms, with a purity of no more than 3-2/3 percent. The core of the heavy water reactor at Arak has been filled with concrete. These are not abstract numbers and mere technicalities. Iran has adhered to the agreement, making a nuclear breakout harder, and take longer. Make no mistake, Iran has some unsavory hardline people in key positions of leadership, but not everyone. President Hassan Rouhani has been a voice of and a force for moderation. The Iran people voted for him as a repudiation of the hardliners. The Iranian people are still the most pro-American in the region, where even some of our allies have large anti-American populations. The majority of the Iranian people still like us, despite the fact that America cooperated with Britain to overthrow their popularly elected government in 1953 and install the Shah as dictator, despite the fact that the United States backed Saddam Hussein in the bloody Iraq-Iran war where we would later send American troops to overthrow him. At that time, he used poison gas--and we did nothing to stop him--against Iranians and against some of his own people. The relationship with Iran is important to not just controlling nuclear threats. Iran is going to play a key role in this troubled area as the major Shia power. Our war against Iraq created huge problems, not just in Iraq, but Syria and Afghanistan. Iran will always play an outsized role. The question is, can we work with them toward peace and reconciliation? I, for one, will vote against efforts to undercut the agreement when, after a year, all the evidence that I have seen is that the agreement is working and that Iran is complying. I am encouraged that there is a memorandum of understanding with American company Boeing and Iran to purchase 80 jet airplanes and lease another 29, supporting over 100,000 jobs in the United States over the next decade. Rather than unwinding this agreement, people should support and strengthen it. Notably, our other partners in the agreement have already started to take commercial advantage. I would rather have American jobs at Boeing than have Airbus sell even more planes to Iran or the French Bombardier manufacturer. The rest of the world has moved on and America should not move backward. In a troubled world, an opportunity to strengthen ties with a former enemy through trade, job creation, and bringing us a bit closer together should not be a major cause for concern. It should be a cause for celebration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of the memory of Reid Williams, a victim of gun violence who never received his moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of the memory of Leatrick Benjamin, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor, let alone a moment of action.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week Congress concluded with a spotlight on gun safety and the yawning chasm between the attitudes of the Republican-controlled Congress and the needs and desires of the American people. Why should America be the only developed Nation on the planet that cannot protect its families from gun violence? Obviously, there are no simple solutions in a Nation where there is a gun for every adult, where a half-dozen people have been killed in recent years by their pets, and even babies kill parents and their siblings with guns. Too many people feel that more guns and fewer protections is the solution, obscuring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American public agrees that there are things we can do and that it is irresponsible and cynical not to try. For more than 24 hours last week, my Democratic colleagues and I discussed many of these solutions on the floor of the House, demanding action on three. For instance, over 90 percent of the American public and a majority of gun owners agreed that there should be no anonymous secret purchases of weapons. There should be a universal background check. People who cannot buy firearms at a gun store should not be able to buy guns over the Internet or at gun shows anonymously. The American public supports us in our efforts to make it harder for people the government has deemed too dangerous to buy a plane ticket to purchase assault weapons. And it is past time to eliminate the outrageous prohibition against the Centers for Disease Control to even study the epidemic of gun violence that kills three or four Americans every hour. These solutions are not really that hard. They would be a signal that we are serious about trying to change the gun violence equation that kills about 90 people every day. I returned to Oregon last week and had encouraging meetings with dozens of people who have been leading the charge in my home State, who are redoubling their efforts. They have demonstrated that steps can be taken through the political process and are committed to building upon their commonsense actions. For example, they led the charge to prevent people with a history of domestic violence and restraining orders from purchasing guns. The Oregon Legislature finally enacted universal background checks, like we are seeking at the Federal level, and the Oregon House of Representatives even passed legislation last session that would have closed the so-called ``Charleston Loophole'' where law enforcement has a 10-day delay for a purchase if the police are unable to determine that purchaser's qualifications. I was impressed and encouraged that these ordinary citizens, so devoted to this cause, are committing to taking on the issue further at the State and local level and making it an issue in the political elections in the fall wherever they can. It is only that type of activity that will overcome the inertia, the temerity, and the cynicism of people who are apologists for gun violence. The same way we embarked upon a decades-long crusade to reduce traffic fatalities that cut that death rate in half, we need to embark on a similar crusade to reduce gun violence. The Members who took to the floor over 24 hours showed a powerful expression of policy and emotion that used to be seen on the floor of this House but is, sadly, seldom in evidence today. But it is not too late. Congress should do its part to at least allow the issue the attention and the consideration we would give to any other public health crisis and end the shame of being the only developed Nation on the planet that cannot protect its families from gun violence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult and challenging situations any family faces is dealing with circumstances surrounding end of life. From sweeping changes to how care is delivered, to the rise of personalized medicine, patients today have more treatment options 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. 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. Oftentimes patients receive aggressive treatment that not only substantially shortens the length of life, but the quality. Other times, patients find the health care system undervalues the quality of their life, withholding treatments they would otherwise want to receive. To this end, individuals should have the opportunity to participate actively in making decisions about their health care throughout their lives and receive care consistent with their values, goals, and informed preferences. Patients should feel empowered to make informed choice about the health care they want and to have their care decisions honored by their providers and family. During the Affordable Care Act debate, I saw an opportunity to apply lessons learned in Oregon with its landmark comprehensive palliative care programs that 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. Last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new benefit, allowing doctors to receive reimbursement to have voluntary advance care planning conversations with their patients. For the first time, the federal government has placed a value on these critical doctor-patient discussions. Yet my work to improve end-of-life care is far from over, and it is for these reasons that I am introducing the bipartisan Personalize Your Care Act 2.0, legislation that will strengthen end-of-life care by establishing new models of care delivery that will 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 advance care planning fundamentally improves quality of care and quality of life. To that end, I ask my colleagues to join me and support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I missed votes on three bills, considered under the suspension of the rules, due to inclement weather. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 5525, the End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016, I would have emphatically voted ``no.'' This misguided legislation would severely undermine the Lifeline program, a program critical to public safety and an important part of the pathway out of poverty. Low-income Americans, whether they are elderly, disabled, low-income veterans, victims of domestic violence, or part of another vulnerable group, need access to 9-1-1 services and job opportunities, a key purpose of the Lifeline program. This vital program should be expanded, not restricted. The majority has no business bringing it up under suspension of the rules. On H.R. 5388, the Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2016, I would have voted ``yes.'' This bill would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to research ways to improve the nation's cybersecurity systems and disseminate their finds with other relevant federal departments and agencies, industry and academia. On H.R. 5389, the Leveraging Emerging Technologies Act of 2016, I would have voted ``yes.'' The bill would require DHS to create a strategic plan to partner with technology developers and firms to combat cyberthreats.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the slaughter in Orlando struck me with special impact. The massacre of patrons of the gay night club focused deliberately on the LGBT community came at a time of unparalleled progress for equality, capped by marriage equality. It was jarring. Even though the struggle continues in places like North Carolina, these killings came at a time of amazing progress and hope. But horrific episodes of gun violence are always personal for me, and not just because of the carnage of multiple shootings and murders. We have had shootings in Oregon in shopping centers and schools, mass shootings in a high school in Springfield and a community college in Roseburg. We have had many deaths and injuries and Presidential visits. The gun violence issue started for me with the senseless freak death from a single shot of a high school friend from a passing car. It is personal. I saw this single, random shot devastate a family, friends, and classmates. My own brother took his life with a handgun. We know that, unlike other forms of suicide attempts, people with handguns almost always succeed. After each horrific event, my hope--and those of millions of other Americans--are raised again. Maybe this time it will be different. You might ask how, if even the slaughter of 20 innocent first graders could not give spineless politicians the courage to stand up to the craven apologists for gun violence? Well, in part, what is different was that, at Sandy Hook, those 20 little children and their six teachers struck a chord that remains. It laid the foundation to help focus the relentless outspoken efforts of President Obama and his entire administration in dealing with each little element of gun safety that was within their power to make us safer. We have Secretary Clinton running for President who has put a spotlight on gun safety throughout her campaign in a way unlike any we have seen in a Presidential campaign before. One of the most encouraging signs for me is that there is a new approach to reducing gun violence, focused on gun safety. This is taking hold. A number of us have come up with our own plans. A couple of years ago, I formulated my approach--looking at the concept we did with traffic safety--not a single magic solution, but a series of thoughtful, focused effects that, in traffic safety, ended up cutting deaths and injuries in half with education, research, enforcement, and policy changes, large and small, that had a cumulative effect of saving hundreds of thousands of lives. We can do this with gun violence. An agenda of simple, commonsense approaches have been taken in other parts of the world, and it has made a difference. We see, in the United States, evidence in those States and communities that have taken action to reduce gun violence that people are, in fact, safer. It makes a difference. Sometimes in politics, we can feel an issue crest, and I think we are watching it now. This week, we have a simple, single powerful little symbol. The no fly, no buy legislation would prevent people who we think are too dangerous to allow them to buy a ticket to fly on a plane, should not be allowed to buy an assault weapon. Today, my colleagues and I are here supporting the notion that, if there is no bill to vote on, there should be no congressional break, demanding at least to allow us a vote on the floor of the House the same way there was some action in the Senate that gave people hope. Let's do our part this morning to raise public awareness, to build momentum to make America safer. We shouldn't go home for the Fourth of July break without at least another small step forward. We owe it to the memory of tens of thousands who have died needlessly from gun violence, and we owe it to the tens of thousands of lives that we can save.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we should all be concerned with the killing of innocents. Let's start right here in America where we are under attack. We are all still reeling from the horrific violence in Orlando--49 killed, more than 50 wounded. It is the worst mass shooting in American history. The killer was someone who, in his own words, identified with ISIS, a madman's fury directed at the GLBT community, who were slaughtered in a place of comfort, release, and joy. It was especially jarring because this has been an unprecedented period of progress for the GLBT issues on every front. New landmarks have been achieved. While this outrage is tragic, horrifying, and frustrating, it is important that people understand that the advocates of GLBT equality and of a rational approach to gun safety are not going to stop in their efforts for reform. The unprecedented outpouring of support in the wake of Orlando ought to be a source of comfort and strength for the GLBT community as people everywhere reaffirm their support and stand in solidarity for full equality. Our Pride Parade in Portland this weekend is going to be larger and more enthusiastic than ever. The equality tide is not going to turn, and the silly bathroom police in North Carolina is not where America is going or even where North Carolina will be in the future. While it seems gun violence continues unchecked by sensible gun safety laws, that tide, too, is poised to turn. We know what to do. No one needs an assault rifle to hunt; although it is very efficient to slaughter little children in school or people in a nightclub. There are dozens of simple steps that can be taken to protect Americans, steps which are, in fact, supported broadly by the public, not just by the majority of Americans but by most gun owners themselves. We should start with universal background checks for all gun purchases. Someone on the terrorist watch list should not be able to purchase a gun; no fly, no buy. If we can personalize our cell phones so that others can't use them, we ought to be able to make smart guns so that others cannot use guns unauthorized. When somebody fails a background check, that ought to be reported to the authorities, who it was, and why. We can repeal the inane prohibition on gun safety research that stops us from treating the epidemic of gun violence like we would any other public health crisis. It is interesting that even the author of this misguided policy 20 years ago now realizes it was a mistake, and he has changed his mind and wants to overturn it. Just like automobile safety, we can take dozens of small steps to reduce gun violence. Not eliminate it altogether, but we don't stop treating cancer just because some people die; so it is with our commitment to gun safety. If we can stop a few tragic acts, it is worth it to reduce the number of attacks and save lives. We are poised for one of the most consequential elections in anybody's memory. Let's make it count. We have an opportunity to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. We can join with President Obama and Secretary Clinton for enlightened national leadership, stand with the LBGT community committed to making this tragedy a turning point. This is the year to deliver on full LBGT equality and commonsense gun safety.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, David Gilkey, an NPR photojournalist from Portland, Oregon, was killed with his Afghani translator, Zabihullah Tamanna, in a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan. I cannot express fully my gratitude for David's tireless commitment to his profession. His evocative, powerful work, and many contributions to NPR will be remembered for generations. Graduating from Wilson High School in Portland in 1985, David followed the path of his father, Richard Gilkey, to Oregon State University, before following his passion of photojournalism at the Boulder Daily Camera, and then the Detroit Free Press before joining NPR in 2007. David covered conflict areas from around the globe, ethnic violence in Rwanda and the Balkans, apartheid in South Africa, famine in Somalia and violence in the Gaza Strip. Since 2001 he extensively covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was one of the most decorated of photojournalists, winning an Emmy in 2007 for a documentary video series and receiving 36 honors from the White House. In 2015, he was the first multimedia journalist to be awarded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's prestigious Edward R. Murrow Award for Journalism. David and journalists like him play an essential role in helping us all better understand global events, putting themselves in harm's way to open the world's window for the rest of us. They are true heroes. Our hearts go out to David's mother and father, Alyda and Richard Gilkey, his circle of family and friends, and to his entire NPR family for their loss.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, David Gilkey, an NPR photojournalist from Portland, Oregon, was killed with his Afghani translator in a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan. I cannot fully express my gratitude for David's tireless commitment to his profession. His evocative, beautiful work, and many contributions to NPR will be remembered for generations. He covered conflict areas around the globe. Since 2001, he extensively covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was one of the most decorated of photo journalists, including an Emmy, and the first multimedia journalist to be awarded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's prestigious Edward R. Murrow Award for Journalism. David played an essential role in helping us understand the global events. He was one of those who put themselves in harm's way to open the world's window for the rest of us. They are true heroes. Our hearts go out to the Gilkey family and to his NPR family for their loss.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to hear my friend from Louisiana with his impassioned presentation today; but his presentation, coming on the heels of what we all heard from the Prime Minister of India--calling for a low carbon, sustainable, innovative future--makes me sad. If we would have had our economy take these issues seriously--maybe have a week of hearings--we would have been able to demonstrate to the gentleman with an impartial panel of independent experts all across the political spectrum--Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat-- that a carbon tax, revenue neutral, is, actually, the key to the innovative future they want. There are all sorts of ways to design a carbon tax, to, actually, enhance the role--the economic status--of low- and moderate-income people, but we never had a hearing on that. It is just simply dismissed as something that we can't do, but they have done it elsewhere in the world. If the committee had done its job, we would be dealing with facts, not hyperbole. If the committee had done its job, we would have heard that we have very real challenges today to American security, which our Department of Defense has pointed out. Climate change, despite denial from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is a threat today to the American military posture. Climate change is disrupting industries like fishing. It is producing unprecedented flooding, forest fires, and a wildly unpredictable weather future. The reduction of arctic ice at unprecedented levels ought to be of concern to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Maybe if we had some open, honest hearings that were balanced and independent, that case would have been made and they may support it. But whether or not they care about climate change and global warming, a carbon tax makes sense for American innovation, the economy, and our competitiveness. It is the areas of low-carbon energy that have seen the job growth. There are now more people working in wind and solar than the coal industry by far. That is where the job growth has been undertaken. A carbon tax would enhance America's global competitiveness. And if we had hearings, listening to independent experts across the board, that case would be made, and I don't think we would have this foolish resolution on the floor. These are elements that would inject into our energy policy an even, balanced approach using market forces, which are much easier than some of the incentives that we have, which are important, which people on both sides of the aisle have supported in the past. But a carbon tax is a more effective way of achieving those objectives. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sad that we didn't have that debate in committee. I am sad that we didn't hear from independent experts. I think of our friend Bob Inglis, former Congressperson, who is on a personal crusade working with the evangelical community about the merits of a carbon tax. It would have been great to have heard from Bob and others like him to be able to present a balanced picture and be able to deal with meaningful policy. I still hope that someday, that time will come that our Ways and Means Committee actually takes the time to dive into one of the most important issues of the day and to examine one of the tools that independent experts all across the spectrum agree would be a solid addition and actually simplify the Tax Code while we can help people in low income and small business and provide incentives for America's global competitiveness, like we heard from the Prime Minister of India from that very rostrum just 2 days ago. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I couldn't agree more with my good friend from Butler, Pennsylvania, that we can actually come together and fashion solutions. That is why it is such a tragedy that this resolution comes to the floor without ever having our committee work on it, because we could have had hearings that could have narrowed those gaps. I include in the Record a letter from six conservative advocates for climate change action. June 7, 2016. Dear Representative: Later this week Congress will take up a resolution sponsored by Congressman Scalise (R-LA1) that expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the economy of the United States. We are concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of market-based climate policy. Legislation that incorporates a carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and robust, benefiting both present and future generations. We recognize that a carbon tax, like any tax, will impose economic costs. But climate change is also imposing economic costs. This resolution falls short by recognizing the cost of action without considering the cost of staying on our present policy course. There are, of course, uncertainties about the future cost of climate change and, likewise, the cost associated with a carbon tax (much would depend on program design and the pace and nature of technological progress). The need for action, however, is clear. A recent survey of economists who publish in leading peer-reviewed journals on these matters found that 93% believe that a meaningful policy response to climate change is warranted. The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax. This would harness price signals, rather than regulations, to guide market response. That is why carbon pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority of the global business community, and a large number of the largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the world (the corporate entities among the most directly affected by climate policy). In reaching a conclusion, this resolution neglects the fact that the United States already has a multiplicity of carbon taxes. They are imposed, however, via dozens of federal and state regulations, are invisible to consumers, unevenly imposed across industrial sectors, unnecessarily costly, and growing in size and scope. The policy choice is not if we should price carbon emissions, but how. Unfortunately, this resolution also fails to differentiate between proposals that would impose carbon taxes on top of existing regulations (chiefly the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan), and proposals that would impose carbon taxes in place of those existing regulations. Conservatives and free market advocates should embrace the latter, regardless of how they view climate risks. An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate policy and deregulate the economy. It could also provide revenue to support pro-growth tax reform, including corporate income or payroll tax cuts, which could dramatically reduce overall costs on the economy. Revenues could be applied to compensate those who suffer the most from higher energy costs; the poor, the elderly, and individuals and families living on fixed incomes. Unfortunately, none of those options are presently available because Members of Congress have neglected opportunities to design and debate market-friendly climate policies in legislation. Instead, they have yielded authority in climate policy design to the Executive Branch. By discouraging a long-overdue discussion about sensible carbon pricing, this resolution frustrates the development of better policy. Sincerely, Jerry Taylor, President, Niskanen Center. Bob Inglis, Executive Director, RepublicEn. Aparna Mathur, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute. The Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox, President, Evangelical Environmental Network. Alan Viard, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.