Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania could have heard them talk about the need for action and how you can design a carbon tax that meets the objectives he is talking about, but we never did that. We didn't listen to experts across the spectrum--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, economists, and scientists--to be able to examine the facts. Instead, we have a cartoon proposal that they are arguing against as opposed to something that we could have worked on together that is promoted by most of the independent experts in the field. And someday within our lifetime this Congress will consider and, I think, probably approve. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott), who has looked at some of these challenges around the globe.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my friend from Louisiana's impassioned presentation. It is too bad that the Committee on Ways and Means didn't actually sit down and go through the elements that would be in a balanced carbon tax. He is debating a cartoon version, not one that we worked on. I am going to yield, in a moment, to one of the gentlemen who, earlier in this carbon debate several Congresses ago, has been involved with crafting a realistic carbon tax. We had the reference to the inability to move the cap-and-trade, which I don't think is as good as a carbon tax. It failed because there were a minority of the Senate who were opposed to allowing it to go forward. It wasn't that we didn't have a majority that were interested. In the Senate, you can have a veto with 41 people who are decided that they are not going to allow things to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). He has been a student of a carbon tax, who has listened to those people across the political spectrum and has been a champion of a reasonable, thoughtful approach to promote American innovation. I would just point out the areas where we have had the greatest job growth in the energy sector have not been petroleum or coal. It has been solar and wind. A carbon tax would help accelerate that by leveling the playing field and allowing the forces of economics to dictate the next steps.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a gentleman who brings his private sector business success to commonsense solutions in policy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), my friend, who has spent a lot of time thinking about these environmental issues and acting on them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I really appreciate this little window of an opportunity to talk about a carbon tax. I hope that the day will come when we will have an opportunity to have that discussion in a robust and thoughtful way in our Ways and Means Committee. Heaven knows it is important. Lots of people have opinions and ideas. I think we would benefit from it, but I hope that we will have that discussion after we hear from a balanced, wide-ranging group of independent experts across the spectrum to be able to give us meaningful information about it. I include in the Record a letter from Greg Dotson, who is the Vice President for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, June 8, 2016. Dear Representative: Later this week, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider H. Con. Res. 89, a resolution that rejects the pricing of carbon pollution. On behalf of the Center for American Progress, I am writing to urge you to oppose this resolution. It is time for Congress to develop sensible policies that address the serious and potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change. Science informs us that we need an urgent solution to this problem. Although the current Administration has made historic progress on climate change, it is clear that we need to do more to achieve additional carbon pollution reductions and lead the world in responding to this global challenge. Top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) under President Bill Clinton, has stated, ``Economic efficiency requires that those who generate emissions pay the cost, and the simplest way of forcing them to do so is through a carbon tax.'' Gregory Mankiw, former Chairman of the CEA under President George W. Bush, has stated, ``Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.'' In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents--representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in a jurisdiction where carbon pollution is currently priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes place. The price on carbon in California is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, and yet the California economy is projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the United States over the next two years. In recent years, momentum to expand the adoption of carbon pricing policies has been growing. More than 400 investors with more than $24 trillion in assets have called on governments to establish ``stable, economically meaningful carbon pricing.'' Already, more than 1,000 businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and operations or plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the United Nations climate talks in Paris last December, governments, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations announced the new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing worldwide. In order to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, the United States needs to consider all possible tools at its disposal, including the effective market-based mechanisms of carbon pricing. Members of Congress need to work together on a bipartisan basis to find ways to cut carbon pollution rather than advance polarizing measures that take useful tools off the table. I urge you to reject this ill-advised resolution. Sincerely, Greg Dotson, Vice President for Energy Policy, Center for American Progress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Let me just read a couple of items from Mr. Dotson's letter. He points out that ``top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution.'' He cites Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, who says: ``Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.'' ``In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents-- representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in jurisdictions where carbon pollution is currently priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes place.'' That is in America right now. There is no acknowledgment of that in this debate. We could have talked about that in the committee. ``The price on carbon in California,'' referenced by my friend, Mr. Huffman, ``is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton . . . yet the California economy is projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the United States over the next two years.'' They reference the fact that ``more than 400 investors with more than $24 trillion in assets have called on governments to establish `stable, economically meaningful carbon pricing.' Already, more than 1,000 businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and operations or plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the United Nations climate talks in Paris last December, governments, business, nongovernmental organizations announced the new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing worldwide,'' in keeping with what we heard from Prime Minister Modi in this Chamber just 2 days ago. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are not involved with our being able to discuss this in depth, being able to bring in the experts, being able to work together to design a pricing mechanism that avoids some of the cartoon characteristics that they establish here. We had that chance, and we haven't done it. But this will not be the last word. This meaningless resolution will undoubtedly pass today. It is not going to have any impact in terms of the long term. The long term, we are on a path to price carbon, and we have the capacity to do so in a thoughtful and an effective way, like the conservative leaders, whose correspondence I put into the Record earlier, suggest. It can be revenue neutral. It can be effective. It can help reverse the more damaging effects of climate change, and it is a way to promote economic opportunity and global competitiveness. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter from opponents of H. Con. Res. 89: June 7, 2016. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 89. This resolution is the latest example of climate action denial being advanced by extreme members of the House of Representatives. Instead of listening to the national security experts, faith leaders, scientists, energy innovators, health professionals and many others who are sounding the alarm on climate change and have implored our nation's elected officials to support action, Rep. Scalise and the co-sponsors of H. Con. Res. 89 appear to be looking for another way to say ``no.'' The sponsors of the resolution have no plan to address climate change and have opposed every proposal to do something about the planet's gravest environmental problem. Many of them don't even accept the scientific fact that climate change is occurring. H. Con. Res. 89 ignores the huge costs that our country is already experiencing due to climate change--costs that fall disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color. It is clear this resolution is meant to put the interests of the polluting fossil fuel companies ahead of the American public's best interest. Instead of holding another just-for-show vote against climate action, the U.S. House of Representatives should be debating how it can best position our country to lead the global transition to clean energy sources. Last year more than half of the world's new energy came from renewable energy sources and the landmark Paris climate agreement sends a powerful signal to investors that this trend toward low- carbon energy will accelerate. More and more countries and hundreds of forward-looking companies are adopting policies to limit carbon pollution and correct the markets failure to capture the health and environmental costs of burning fossil fuels. At a time when the American taxpayer is already paying to move vulnerable American communities to higher ground because of climate-driven sea level rise, we have no time to waste on empty resolutions that seek to take potential climate solutions off the table. Sincerely, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Fresh Energy, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I always enjoy sharing the debate with my good friend from Butler, Pennsylvania, who cares passionately about this country. He has some, I think, great ideas. We often find areas that we can agree. I think even the issue that we are debating today could be an area where we could find agreement, because what the President is proposing is not to levy a fee and have the money burned up. The President is proposing a fee to fix America's damaged infrastructure. I know my friend from Butler cares passionately about the people who he represents. They are paying a tax today for poor infrastructure. The average American pays three times with annual damage to their cars than what this fee would be, if it were translated directly to a gas tax increase. I note that his State of Pennsylvania actually has imposed an oil franchise fee which is the equivalent of about another 9.5 cent increase. Pennsylvania did that because their infrastructure is damaged. Well, that is what we should have as part of this discussion today. Again, we have a cartoon proposal that assumes that there is just a barrel fee that is just a burden on the American public and not look at what the fee is for, what benefits would accrue if, again, we had actually had the Ways and Means Committee meet and discuss the legislation that was referred to us. We didn't have a hearing on this. One of the things I have pleaded with Ways and Means leadership for as long as I have been on the committee: Let's sit down and actually have meaningful discussions with the men and women who manage, design, build, and operate America's infrastructure. If we would have had that debate in this Congress, we could have had arrayed before us the president of the AFL-CIO, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the president--actually, we did have the president of the American Trucking Association, the one witness the Democrats were allowed, who said: Raise the tax on my people, along with everybody else, to rebuild and renew America. But we never had a robust, broad debate before our committee. If we did, we would have had the broadest coalition of any major issue that we considered: the people who design roads, the people who come forward with the asphalt, and the people who are the delivery services. We are paying a tremendous price today because America is falling apart and falling behind. You don't have to go very far to ask people in Louisiana; Portland, Oregon; or Houston, Texas, if we have got a problem. This is an investment that more than pays for itself. Again, this isn't money down some rat hole. This is money that would be invested to rebuild and renew America. If we would have had a real hearing on this proposal--which we didn't--we could have had the people from Standard & Poor's research come in and review their report. Every $1.2 billion we spend on infrastructure creates $2 billion of economic activity. These are the people who would have family-wage jobs from coast to coast who would help revitalize local economies, while we make our infrastructure safer and more effective. And it isn't just economic activity. That Standard & Poor's report would have revealed that that $1.2 billion in infrastructure would have reduced the deficit by $200 million, but we didn't have that debate. So we have people coming up here on the floor somehow claiming that the President's responsible proposal to fund infrastructure would be an economic disaster, ignoring the fact that we have an infrastructure crisis in this country right now. The American Society of Civil Engineers points out that our failure to deal with this is a tax of over $3,000 per family. If we would be honest, have independent experts, if the committee would do its job, we wouldn't be having bizarre debates like this that suggest that the President's proposal would hurt the economy or would be costly. To the contrary, it would strengthen the economy, put millions of people to work at family-wage jobs, and improve the conditions of families from coast to coast. We are going to have, I hope, more heard about this in the future. But I hope that we don't have proposals that are rushed to the floor without thoughtful committee action and making strange assertions that simply are not supported by facts. If we impose the fee that the President is talking about to rebuild and renew America, it will create more economic activity, it will put people to work, and it will give Americans the infrastructure they deserve and enhance our economic security at home and abroad. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Louisiana and his assessment. Actually, I agree with him. We should have a different mechanism. I have had proposals to have different approaches to funding infrastructure. Some of them have been embedded in the more recent transportation reauthorization, but this is something that we never took up in our Ways and Means Committee. I have had legislation there for several Congresses. It is time for people to stop saying that they support infrastructure and then not work with us to figure out ways to fund it going forward. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in Congress in my tenure who has done more to think about what we do for America's infrastructure. He has had many innovative proposals to fund infrastructure. He has been a tireless champion of it. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my friend and colleague from across the Potomac River, who cares a great deal about environmental policy and infrastructure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I appreciate the opportunity for us to visit on this proposal today. I don't agree with the resolution by any stretch of the imagination, but at least it is an opportunity for us to have a little bit of the conversation that we should have been having all along. I enjoy debating with my good friend from Louisiana. I respect his intellect and his humor, and it is fun to do a little bit of this today. It would have been far better if we would have been able to do so in the context of a full committee hearing where we would have been able to dig deeply into these issues. For example, we could have had the Transportation Construction Coalition. I include in the Record a letter on this resolution, a letter which is dated June 9 of this year. June 9, 2016. Dear Representative: The House is scheduled to consider later this week a resolution opposing President Obama's proposal for a $10.25 per barrel of oil tax. While H. Con. Res. 112 makes many statements regarding an oil barrel tax, the resolution fails to mention the intent of the President's proposal is to generate resources to stabilize and grow federal surface transportation investment. The resolution also does not remind members that recurring Highway Trust Fund revenue shortfalls caused repeated disruptions to their state's transportation program over the past eight years. Since 2008, Congress has approved seven pieces of legislation transferring a total $143 billion in borrowed or General Fund revenue into the Highway Trust Fund to prevent cuts in federal highway and transit investment. Over that same period, the trust fund's permanent revenue deficit has led to 14 temporary extensions of the surface transportation programs and one short-term reauthorization bill. Furthermore, upon the expiration of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act at the end of FY 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projects the trust fund's average annual shortfall will grow to $18 billion. While the sincerity of the Obama Administration's proposal for a Highway Trust Fund solution is dubious given its release three months after the President signed the FAST Act into law, a per barrel oil tax of that magnitude would be a real and permanent solution. And its nexus to highway users as a revenue mechanism is far more honest than the budget gimmicks, deficit spending and burdens placed on non- transportation sectors of the economy that the Congress has deployed since 2008 to keep investment in the surface transportation programs essentially static. We certainly respect the right of members of Congress to disagree with the President's proposal, but it is incumbent upon anyone who does so to bring forward an alternative way to achieve the same objective. We strongly believe all potential revenue options should be on the table. Preliminarily disparaging one significant solution just makes it more difficult to resolve a problem that has plagued Congress for nearly a decade. Rather than making rhetorical statements about taxes five months before an election, Congress should be working in a bipartisan manner to ensure that a permanent mechanism to preserve and grow federal highway and public transportation investment is in place well before the U.S. Department of Transportation starts warning states of the next highway program shutdown. Sincerely, The Transportation Construction Coalition.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, they point out that the resolution fails to mention that the intent of the President's proposal is to generate resources to stabilize and grow Federal surface transportation investment. The resolution does not remind Members that the recurring Highway Trust Fund revenue shortfalls caused repeated disruptions to their States' transportation programs over the past eight years. We have had to have 14 temporary extensions of the Surface Transportation Act, and the only way we got the FAST Act passed, as my friend Congressman DeFazio pointed out, was with a series of budget gimmicks, not real solutions. At the end of 2020, when that legislation expires, we are going to face a $20 billion annual deficit. The per barrel oil tax of this magnitude, according to the Transportation Construction Coalition, would be a real and a permanent solution. We wouldn't be chasing our tails all the time. And its nexus to highway users as a revenue mechanism is far more honest than the budget gimmicks, deficit spending, and burdens placed on non- transportation sectors of the economy that Congress has deployed since 2008 to keep investment, essentially, static. They state that they believe all potential revenue options should be on the table, that it is incumbent upon anybody who wants to disagree with the President to bring forward an alternative way to meet the same objective, which, sadly, has not happened. We haven't even been able to discuss it in the Ways and Means Committee. They write: Preliminarily disparaging one significant solution just makes it more difficult to resolve a problem that has plagued Congress for more than a decade. Rather than making rhetorical statements about taxes 5 months before an election, Congress should be working in a bipartisan manner to ensure that a permanent mechanism to preserve and grow Federal highway and public transportation investment is in place well before the Department of Transportation starts warning States about the next program shutdown. I seldom read statements from other groups on the floor, but I couldn't have said it better myself. That is what we should be doing rather than this exercise today, which completely misses the point. This oil barrel fee may not be perfect, but it would go a long way toward solving the problem. It will put millions of Americans to work at family-wage jobs. It will create more economic activity than the cost of the program. For every $1.2 billion that it generates, it will generate $2 billion of economic activity, and it will reduce the deficit $200 million. If we had actually had the committee do a deep dive and spend a week in working on it, this would have been on the table, and I think we would have found wide areas of agreement. Rather than engaging in this exercise regarding H. Con. Res. 112, I would like to think of what Ronald Reagan did in 1982. The economy was pretty rocky in 1982. There were some contentious politics in Congress. Ronald Reagan, in his Thanksgiving Day speech on November 29, 1982, called on Congress to come back from their Thanksgiving recess and work together to more than double the Federal gas tax, because in one of the best speeches, frankly, I have ever heard anybody give, he pointed out the little cost to the American consumer would be more than offset by damage, for example, for a couple pair of shock absorbers. Congress reacted to President Reagan's call for a gas tax increase on a bipartisan basis. It more than doubled it. It added hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it improved the quality of life for Americans. It did so in keeping the bipartisan tradition surrounding infrastructure. Rather than this partisan partial debate, we ought to go back to the basics, follow Ronald Reagan's example, and have a spirited, comprehensive approach to solving the problem rather than tilting at straw men. I strongly urge the rejection of the resolution, but, more important, the rejection of this approach to continue to stick our heads in the sand and avoid our responsibility to fund American infrastructure and to rebuild and renew this great country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Question of Consideration of the Resolution, the Rule for H.R. 5325, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017 (Roll Call Number 283), I would have voted ``no.'' Had the question failed, Rep. Castro would have been able to offer his bill H.R. 3785, Correcting Hurtful and Alienating Names in Government Expression (CHANGE) Act. H.R. 3785 would strike the term ``illegal alien'' from federal law and replace it with the term ``undocumented foreign national.'' Rep. Castro offered an amendment in Rules Committee to H.R. 5325, which was not made in order, that would reverse House Republican language restricting the Librarian of Congress from implementing changes to subject headings from ``illegal alien'' to ``undocumented immigrant.'' I support the Library of Congress's decision to no longer use the subject heading ``illegal alien'' and instead use ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration.'' The phrase ``illegal alien'' is offensive and dehumanizing to many, and I support the Library's thoughtful decision.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend from Texas. They are important to consider. I am going to shift gears for a moment. I have another issue to talk about today. To a certain extent, I have great sympathy for my Republican colleagues. They have been stuck with a standard-bearer for their party, who is a bigot, a bully, a liar, a misogynist, with no discernible qualifications for the high office that he seeks. But they are not helping themselves by trying to shift the subject of debate here on the floor of the House. Tomorrow, we are going to be taking a stand against a couple of what they think are unpopular ideas. It is too bad that the proposals we will be debating on were never considered by our Ways and Means Committee. One, a sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be bad for the economy. And the other, opposition to the President's proposal for a $10 a barrel fee on oil. The carbon tax ironically is something that most of the economists who have studied it--whether they are conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat--agree would be a good policy for this country. A carbon tax is the most efficient way to deal with the serious problems of carbon pollution that is already harming the economy. Look at the disruption of the fishing industry and the widespread flooding we have seen that has been unprecedented. We are about to go into another egregious forest fire season with huge costs economically, as well as to forest health. We have wildly unpredictable weather-- unprecedented heat. In Portland, Oregon, last weekend, it was 100 degrees for both days. A carbon tax would harness market forces to be able to change that direction more effectively than other initiatives. A carbon tax actually can be designed to cushion impacts on low- to moderate-income people. In fact, it actually could be designed to help low- to moderate-income people. A blanket dismissal of what economists think is our best economic environmental protection is shortsighted. It is too bad that we didn't debate it in committee. The other resolution, the opposition to the President's barrel tax, misses the point entirely. It suggests that that is somehow going to be detrimental. Wait a minute. The barrel fee would be used to rebuild and renew America. We have been in a desperate situation. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993. It has made it almost impossible to move forward with a robust transportation bill to deal with the problem. America is falling apart while we are falling behind. That is why seven red Republican States last year raised the gas tax. We couldn't even talk about it here in Congress. Using a barrel fee of $10 per barrel will enable us to make significant investments in rebuilding and renewing America. The Standard & Poor 500 research report of a couple of years ago pointed out that investment in infrastructure has a significant impact on the economy. $1.2 billion creates almost 30,000 jobs, creates $2 billion worth of economic activity, reduces the Federal deficit $200 million, and we get the benefit of improved infrastructure. That is why every major interest group supported raising revenues for transportation. When I introduced the gas tax increase, it was supported by the American Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, by truckers, AAA, engineers, and contractors. Virtually everybody who builds, uses, maintains, or owns American infrastructure said, Raise this fee, help us rebuild and renew America. I think the only thing wrong with the President's proposal is that it is several years too late. We should have been debating this from the outset, particularly when petroleum prices have fallen precipitously, and when America's infrastructure continues to deteriorate. It is sad that we didn't have a robust debate in committee. We will have a little bit of discussion tomorrow. But it is too little and too late.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is a bike share revolution that is spreading across America. Over 70 systems are now operating in 104 cities, including, next month, my hometown of Portland, Oregon. Atlanta's system opened today. This is an opportunity to provide the bicycle in a more convenient form, where people can rent by the half hour, by the hour, by the day. We find that research shows that the bike share is safer than regular bicycles. There have been no fatalities recorded in more than 35 million trips around the country so far. It is cheaper. It is a healthier form of transit. Low-cost memberships are available for low- income populations, for example, in Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia and Chicago. The Nation's Capital is a model for bike share. Launched in 2010, there are now over 350 stations around the D.C. area. Daily ridership is over 9,000. Bike share members report annual savings of $700 to $800 a year due to riding the bike share. My amendment suggests that it is time for the Architect of the Capitol to have the Capitol Grounds included in this process, requiring a feasibility study on the installation and operation of bike share stations on the Capitol Grounds. Right now, the nearest station to House Office Buildings is at the bottom of Capitol Hill, between the busy Independence Avenue and freeway on-ramps. It is not convenient to our staff. It is not convenient to the millions of visitors that come to Capitol Hill every year. Thinking for a moment about the problems we have got now with the Metro maintenance, every person that takes a bike share is one more person who is not on the road ahead of you or crowded into overcrowded facilities. I respectfully suggest that this amendment be adopted, that we have $100,000 within the Architect of the Capitol's budget to undertake this feasibility study to improve the quality of life, the health, and mobility in and around this vital area of our Nation's Capital. It is unfortunate that this intense area of activity is underserved. This amendment would help remedy that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), left off. Congressman Walden and I worked for several years to try and deal with the preservation of a precious resource. Mount Hood is the dividing line between our two districts. We have a lot of personal history involved there, and it was really one of my most positive experiences in two decades of congressional service, zeroing in with the stakeholders--Native Americans, environmentalists, local government--trying to figure out the best protections for a very complicated area that is within easy driving distance of 4 million people. There were many strains and stresses and multiple stakeholders on the mountain itself. As he said, part of the delicate balance that was achieved was an opportunity for us to deal with this land exchange. It was a win-win situation for a variety of the stakeholders. It obviously is better for the environment. It settled long-simmering disputes that served nobody's interest but had actual potential for negative outcomes. This land exchange was part of what was envisioned. This was not just a bipartisan effort with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and myself. It was then Senator Smith and Senator Wyden, and now Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden have been partners in this. It is frustrating that we get to the point where it requires legislation to do something that was an integral part of this agreement. I am proud to join my friend in urging support for it. We want to get this passed and be able to capitalize on the vision that we worked so hard on to protect the mountain and all of the attendant interests. This land exchange is critical to it, and I am pleased that this legislation is finally on the floor, although I am frustrated that we have to have legislation on the floor. Hopefully, this will enable us to finish this task.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night, as I celebrated the passage of Representative Sean Patrick Maloney's amendment to prohibit the federal government from doing business with contractors who discriminate against LGBT individuals, I was dismayed to realize that, as the vote was closing, I had failed to press the button to vote to support the amendment, which would have made the margin of victory even larger. I voted for the amendment last week, and I continue to strongly support efforts to ensure equality for the LGBT community. The anti- LGBT amendments offered to the same bill, which I stanchly oppose, demonstrate the all too real, continued discrimination that the LGBT community faces, even after historic achievement of marriage equality and the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''