Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2745, (Roll Call Number 131) I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 653, the rules for consideration of H.R. 2745, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, (Roll Call Number 132), I would have voted ``nay.'' Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4742, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act (Roll Call Number 133), I would have voted ``aye.'' I applaud Rep. Esty's effort to expand the mission of the National Science Foundation to encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women and to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world. While women make up about half the U.S. workforce, they only account for about 1 in 4 of those working in STEM fields. This bill is an important part of the larger effort to expand entrepreneurial opportunities for women in the STEM fields. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4755, the Inspiring the Next Space Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act (Roll Call Number 134), I would have voted ``aye.'' I am encouraged by Rep. Comstock's work to expand STEM educational opportunities for women and girls. Specifically, the bill directs NASA to encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), pursue careers in aerospace and support NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS, the Aspire to Inspire (A2I) program and the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER) program. Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4336, the Women Airforce Service Pilot Arlington Inurnment Restoration Act, as amended (Roll Call Number 135), I would have voted ``aye.'' I support Rep. McSally's work to make groups of women, civilians and foreigners who served the United States during World War II eligible to be inurned in Arlington National Cemetery. This is a great victory for the families of the brave women who served during World War II.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2745, which would add protections for consumers by ensuring that the underlying bill would not apply to mergers that would unreasonably increase the costs of pharmaceutical drugs (rollcall No. 136), I would have voted ``aye.'' Had I been present for the vote on the passage of H.R. 2745, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act (rollcall No. 137), I would have voted ``nay.'' This bill would eliminate important administrative and procedural tools the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) uses to protect market competition and the American consumer. Additionally, this bill seems unnecessary, particularly after the Wall Street Journal dubbed 2015 the ``biggest year ever for mergers and acquisitions.'' Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 658, a resolution condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Brussels on March 22, 2016, (rollcall No. 138), I would have voted ``aye.'' These attacks signal a painful continuation in our struggle against terrorism.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 4314, the Counterterrorism Screening and Assistance Act of 2016, as amended (Roll Call No. 130), I would have voted ``aye.'' The bill would require the State Department and other federal agencies to develop a plan that boosts the ability of U.S. allies to block international travel of terrorists and foreign fighters and to accelerate the transfer to partner nations of certain U.S. systems that help identify terrorists and other high-risk individuals. It also would establish minimum international border security standards and allows the suspension of U.S. foreign aid to nations that fail to make significant efforts to comply with those minimum standards.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleague in the Senate and fellow Oregonian Senator Ron Wyden, I am pleased to introduce the Recreation Not Red-Tape (RNR) Act. This bill helps to support and promote sustainable outdoor recreation on public lands by removing barriers to access and making recreation more of a priority for federal land managers. In Oregon and across the country, an increasing number of Americans enjoy recreating outdoors. In fact, at least two thirds of Oregonians participate in outdoor recreation each year. Recently, I joined Senator Wyden for a portion of his tour of Oregon's Seven Wonders--some of our state's most treasured outdoor recreation destinations--and we heard from dozens of Oregonians about how important open spaces, trails, and recreation areas are to individuals, families, businesses, and communities. From the magnificent Columbia River Gorge to lesser known trails and creeks throughout our forests, canyons, and deserts, having access to these places for hiking, nature-watching, biking, and other activities is good for our souls and for our economy. Outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands in Oregon and nationwide support healthy communities, create jobs, generate tax revenue, and support a high quality of life. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, Americans spend $646 billion per year on outdoor recreation gear, vehicles, trips, and more. In Oregon, outdoor recreation generates over $12 billion in consumer spending, tens of thousands of jobs, and $4 billion in wages and salaries. Not only that, but supporting sustainable outdoor recreation on public lands can also help protect important ecological, watershed, and fish and wildlife values that underpin high quality recreation experiences. While public lands are open to all Americans, unfortunately sometimes it's not as easy as it should be to enjoy the great outdoors. Recreation permitting can involve confusing, complicated, and lengthy processes, and federal land managers need support in maintaining trails to facilitate use. We need to prioritize sustainable outdoor recreation for the important, powerful role that it plays in our economy, in our communities, and in our environment. This bill helps to promote and support sustainable outdoor recreation on public lands by simplifying recreation special use permitting, facilitating access for our youth, seniors, and veterans, prioritizing maintenance of trails through collaborative partnerships, making environmentally responsible outdoor recreation a priority for land management agencies, and more. These changes will help get more people outside to enjoy our environment, nurturing our important bond with the natural world. The next step will be to complement these efforts by continuing to conserve and protect the special places that provide us with recreation opportunities, so that those opportunities can be available for generations to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the tortured Presidential nominating process continues with generalities and insults, but maybe we could avert our eyes and attention for a moment and consider some real challenges that we face closer at hand. The backdrop in the metropolitan area in Washington, D.C., is that D.C. Metro has shut down for the entire day to deal with safety concerns--an unprecedented step. The bigger issue for most people in the region, for most riders and potential users, is the system's reliability. It is a symbol of a lack of resources and a lack of leadership, not just for Metro, but for the States of Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government itself. They have, sadly, been lacking in leadership, in vision, and providing the resources for this vital system for a region of approximately 4 million people. At the same time, we have a looming water and sewer crisis, almost 2 million miles of pipe, in some cases long past its useful life. A water main breaks every 2 minutes. We have serious problems with system reliability with sewage. The city of Flint, Michigan, and its terrible situation with lead in the drinking water has captured attention, but it has also pointed out for people who look deeper that this is a problem that afflicts communities across the country. We have, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, an overall grade, as a country, of D dealing with sewer and water challenges. What if the major candidates would train their attention on serious proposals to deal with the infrastructure crisis already upon us? Not mere generalities, but let's talk about how they would pay for it. What is their vision to deal with multiple needs, and how would they set priorities? It is not really that hard. In a number of very red States, governments have stepped up to raise the gas tax and fund transportation. In metropolitan communities across the country, in red States and blue, people are dealing with their challenges, proposing to their communities funding and vision to solve the problem. I have got bipartisan legislation to establish a Federal water infrastructure trust fund to help start in that regard. We ought to fix the transportation funding. There is broad support amongst labor, business, profession AAA truckers to raise the gas tax and be able to deal with our transportation challenges. Finally, we should embrace technology in transportation, things from self-driving, autonomous vehicles, electronic payment for road systems, a road user charge being experimented on in the State of Oregon. These are mechanisms that would help us update, modernize, and make these systems more effective. And by the way, when you hear all those candidates talking about strengthening the middle class and the economy, these proposals would put millions of people to work at family-wage jobs in every community across America. It would strengthen safety and liveability and bring people together. You know, when we have faced up to infrastructure challenges, whether it is Dwight Eisenhower's interstate freeway system, what we have done in the past with clean water and clean air, those are things that are broadly supported by Americans. An infrastructure agenda, a realistic infrastructure agenda has the potential of bringing people together while it strengthens America, and it would certainly be a nice change of pace.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 4557, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act of 2016, yet another bill in a series of Republican attempts to block EPA's ability to effectively regulate pollution in a way that protects our health and the environment. H.R. 4557 would delay the enactment of an important rule limiting mercury and other hazardous pollution from clay and brick products production facilities. I was disappointed to see it pass the House, but I know that President Obama and Democrats in the Senate will ensure that this misguided bill does not become law this year. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to establish standards for pollution from all industrial sectors, and many other sectors are already complying to improve air quality. There is no reason to further delay this rule, and no reason for this legislation. I am hopeful that House Republicans will drop its obsession with pro- pollution bills and allow us to get to work on a budget and bills that will improve the lives of Oregonians.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today a bipartisan group of several dozen Members from both sides of the aisle led by Adam Kinzinger and me were going to be sending a letter to Secretary Kerry, and I am pleased to say we don't have to send it. The origin of the request dealt with our military operations in the Middle East, the brave Iraqi and Afghan men and women who provided sensitive and trusted services to United States military personnel. For over a decade, I have been working to try and protect them. These Iraqis and Afghans who worked with Americans, whether as drivers or interpreters, were shoulder to shoulder with our troops, often in dangerous circumstances. In some instances, we have heard how their services literally made the difference as to whether our soldiers lived or died. Now, thousands of our allies who helped us, face kidnapping, torture, and murder as a direct result of their assistance provided to the United States because members of the Taliban and the self-proclaimed Islamic State and other hostile elements on the ground see these individuals' service as an act of betrayal--and they have long memories. To reward their faithful service and to fulfill our moral obligation, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with Senators, starting with Senator McCain and the late Senator Kennedy in 2007, to create a special immigrant visa program. Known as the SIV program, enables the safe relocation of these Afghans and Iraqis to the United States. Since 2007, our bipartisan team in Congress, including a number of Members who have recently joined us who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and know these circumstances firsthand, has been working to reform and revise the program, sometimes fighting just to keep it alive. In November of last year, the National Defense Authorization Act extended and expanded the Afghan SIV program to ensure the continued protection of these souls. However, the final version of the bill also lengthened the period of service from 1 to 2 years required for individuals ``submitting a petition after September 30, 2015.'' The State Department's initial announcement on the interpretation of the law would have made more than 3,000 of our Afghan allies who had already begun the cumbersome application process start over to demonstrate the 2 years of qualifying employment. That is why Representative Kinzinger and I prepared this bipartisan letter to call on the State Department to revisit the interpretation. Thankfully, after review and consideration of the concerns from Members of Congress, the State Department agreed to apply the 2-year requirement only to new applicants. This is welcome news. Every hour that is delayed to relocate these vital partners to safety, puts their lives at risk and lives of their families. I am glad we have put this behind us perhaps, but we cannot keep operating in this inefficient manner while our allies and their families face consistent threats. They deserve better. And we can do better. It is shameful that we cannot better serve those who have put their lives on the line to help us. It seems that there is always another roadblock that occurs. This should be a bipartisan issue that Members of Congress and the administration can work together on to save lives. It is not just saving the lives of the people who helped us. It ensures the safety of our troops and other American personnel currently serving in harm's way. It will ensure the success of our future missions. No one in their right mind will cooperate with American forces under dire circumstances if we abandon them after their vital assistance. I applaud the State Department's reinterpretation of this work requirement and look forward to working with my colleagues on the SIV program improvements this year. I hope we can do a better job to meet our responsibility to these souls who risked so much to help Americans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, every day we are reminded by current events of how essential water and sanitation are to our very existence, whether it is Flint, Michigan, droughts in California, or the challenges of safe drinking water and sanitation for underdeveloped countries. This dominates the news and is at the root of an increasing number of conflicts, which will become only more serious. Water policy is one of the most critical areas that this Congress ought to be able to address on a bipartisan basis. The facts are stark, opportunities vivid, and public support is strong. That is why I have spent a great deal of time focusing on issues of water and sanitation since I first came to Congress. Legislation for international water and sanitation is critical not just for humanitarian reasons, but to protect the environment. It helps avoid conflict within societies and between nations because of water scarcity or shared river basins. I have worked on legislation reforming flood insurance, rewriting the Corps of Engineers' outdated principles and guidelines that should inform their practices on water infrastructure and environmental management, and I have worked for a decade on the creation of a water trust fund. Unlike surface transportation, which has a highway trust fund and a source of revenue, the Federal Government has no similar mechanism for water and sanitation. The status of our water infrastructure is appalling and getting worse, while support from the Federal Government has been in decline. In fact, there has been a slow, steady retreat on water infrastructure spending since the Carter administration. The American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our water infrastructure a D. We have almost 170,000 drinking water systems around the country. While the useful life of pipes can be sometimes up to 100 years, we have facilities that date back to the 1800s. A water main breaks every 2 minutes. The American Water Works Association anticipates the need of a trillion dollars, over the next 25 years, to replace the most critical of more than a million miles of pipe, while congressional appropriations have declined to less than $1.5 billion a year, a tiny fraction of our needs. The total mileage of sewer mains in the United States is unknown, but it is probably between 700,000 and 800,000 miles. Many of these pipes were installed right after World War II and are approaching the end of their useful life. The sewer systems with aging pipes and inadequate capacity mean almost a trillion gallons of untreated sewage each year that is discharged into our waterways. The total needs over the next 20 years for both sewer and water are almost beyond our comprehension, but the current spending, it is clear, is completely inadequate. The public and the scientists are finding more problems, which will argue for even higher standards. That is why I have developed bipartisan legislation for the creation of a water trust fund. I have been working on this for years with different bipartisan partners. Given that there appears to be little appetite now in Congress for any tax or fee increase, I have adjusted the bill so that the revenue comes from voluntary participation by companies that have a keen interest in clean drinking water and adequate sanitation--indeed, their very business depends on it. They would be able, for a tiny fee, to voluntarily identify as being supportive of the water trust fund. A little seal of approval would raise several billion dollars a year. This could be used to deal with the problems of low-income ratepayers that make it hard for overall rates to be increased and to leverage more investment at a time of remarkably low costs of borrowing. We could have significant investment to deal with some of our greatest problems. This is by no means the entire answer to the looming crisis, but we shouldn't wait for the next Flint or the problems in drought-stricken California or some other municipal breakdown. We should start now. I urge people to cosponsor my bipartisan water trust fund legislation, H.R. 4468. Let's get started.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the weeks ahead, we will be dealing with the budget resolution and we will be dealing with defense authorization and appropriations. Already we have seen the administration unveil a budget that is not only unrealistic, but actually could be dangerous. It keeps spending for all the nuclear modernization on track over $3 billion, and it includes funding for a long-range, standoff replacement cruise missile, $2.2 billion in the future year defense program, ultimately costing $20- to $30 billion, if not more, this to replace a cruise missile that the father of this device, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, feels is no longer relevant and has argued against. There are billions of dollars for the controversial modernization of each leg of the nuclear triad--the land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and the bombers--which have not been used in 65 years, have been unable to help us with the military challenges that we face now in the Middle East and are going to consume huge sums of money in this hopelessly redundant program. It is dangerous because of the cuts in the nuclear nonproliferation program of over $100 million. I mean, these are real threats to our security. We are battling ISIS now. They have already obtained some low-grade nuclear material in a facility near Mosul. We have had a few nuclear weapons gone missing and other nuclear materials unaccounted for or stolen. We need to have these proven programs to reduce the inventory, track it down, and take it out of circulation. We should be expanding them, not cutting them back. It continues an overall trillion-dollar spending that we are going to have on the nuclear programs over the course of the next 30 years. Now, these are resources that are going to be at the expense of our conventional weapons. As I mentioned, the nuclear triad is far more than we need to deter anybody in the world right now and do not help us with the strategic challenges that we face today. It is not going to prevent Russian adventurism in Ukraine or Crimea, but it will result in our having to cannibalize the Guard and Ready Reserve, the Army that will be paying the price for this. These are conventional forces that have paid the price for the last two decades of activities and are going to be needed for both deterrence and, God forbid, actual activity in the future. We cannot do all of this within the current budget horizon. The budget gimmicks ignore that. We have a little trust fund with the overseas contingency account that ignores budget realities that we are not going to be able to continue in perpetuity. We ignore the long-term costs of budget programs for weapons, preferring to put that off to a future administration and future Congresses. In so doing, we are playing fast and loose with the integrity of the Pentagon with the resources and the materials that are necessary to support our troops now and in the future. It is not too late for this Congress to demand a spending plan, cost accountability, kill the new cruise missile program, and put us on a path of fiscal stability and sanity while we have appropriate priorities for the military strength and defense of our country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. There are, in fact, alternatives if what you want to do is kill animals with guns. We don't need to do lead-based ammunition, which ends up in the environment. It ends up not just in what you are killing. It doesn't go away. It persists and adds to lead pollution. There is no reason that we can't make changes in these policies that we know are destructive, that we know there are viable alternatives to that actually protect the environment. As people work through this legislation and hear from animal welfare groups, sports people, and environmentalists and as they look at the problems that are associated with it, it is not a consensus, bipartisan bill. It is an approach that actually leads us in the wrong direction. It is not rational. It is not popular. It is not based in sound policy. I strongly urge its rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. Madam Chair, I, too, am a passionate advocate of public spaces, of outdoor recreation, and I understand the importance of protecting some of our Nation's most pristine places. My constituents enjoy hunting and fishing and are involved in exploring the great outdoors. That is why it is unfortunate that what we have before us today is a piece of legislation that is unduly partisan and special-interest-oriented and is not speaking in terms of things that could have brought us together in something that could have been a lovefest. Why aren't we making a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and making sure that it is funded? Yesterday we had hundreds and hundreds of women from the Federated Garden Club of America, just one more group adding its voice to something that is supported by people who hunt, people who fish, people who hike, people who enjoy the opportunity of what the Land and Water Conservation Fund represents. Instead, we are veering off. We are in the process now of having legislation in this bill that does pose serious problems in terms of environmental protections. I will give one specific example in terms of what is happening in the area of ivory. Voters in Washington recently voted overwhelmingly to ban on a State level traffic in ivory. You are going to see this fall in my State of Oregon that an initiative is going to be approved that is going to close loopholes in terms of allowing trade in my State for ivory. This has nothing to do with grandma's antique piano or somebody who has an ivory-handled pistol that has been in the family for years. We have a thriving international trade in ivory that is resulting in the destruction of a species. We are losing 100 elephants a day. At the rate we are going, by the end of the decade--within 10 years-- there will be no more wild African elephants. The trade in ivory fuels some of the most heinous acts by some of the most vicious people in the world. Terrorists use these funds for their horrific activities, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, poisoning wells so that the animals are dying by the dozens, hacking off the tusks at that site. We have to stop the trade in ivory. The United States is the second largest destination. We have China that is finally stepping up and working with us. We should not make it harder for the United States to crack down on the ivory trade. There is no reason for a civilized society to continue trading in things like ivory tusks and products. It enables this black market to continue. People will find their way into it, and we will continue to slaughter elephants every single day. What we should be doing is not restricting what the Federal Government is doing. We should be tightening it further like we will do in the State of Oregon. I find it a little frustrating that people are talking about protecting traditional ammunition and fishing lure. I mean, there are some people who might say, in Flint, Michigan, using lead in the pipes is a traditional way of plumbing, but we figured out that that traditional mechanism is actually poisoning people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to join you this evening, and I appreciate the conversation that we have had. Dr. McDermott's experience in the 1960s and 1970s really touched me. I started in my political career when I was much smarter than I am now and was part of the deinstitutionalization movement in my State of Oregon, where it was quite clear that we could provide better quality services that were less intrusive and more cost-effective through a program of deinstitutionalization. It made perfect sense on paper. What happened--and, luckily, karma intervened. I was a local official when it hit full force. The commitments that had been made to help with medication, to help with housing, to help with counseling, and to be able to provide the support services weren't ironclad guarantees. It was easy for subsequent legislators to erode them, and people were out on their own. This was a process that took place across the country, and we have seen the impact, as Dr. McDermott mentioned. I really appreciate you sinking your teeth in here to bring this forward. There are some elements that are clearly controversial. I have found over the course of 2 years that we have been talking about this a willingness to engage in conversation and to be open to refinement because we are all seeking the same objectives. One of the things that has just become clearer and clearer to me is that there needs to be stronger provisions to deal with assisted outpatient treatment programs. We used to call it involuntary commitment. It strikes me that we would not have a cancer patient just sort of cast loose on their own to sort of fend for themselves. But we have some of the most vulnerable members of society, in many cases, who are not capable of fully comprehending the situation they are in. In fact, in some cases, part of the illness they suffer from is that they don't think that they are sick, that we make it much more difficult than it should be, in some cases, impossible, for people who care about them most to be able to participate in treatment. I appreciate your willingness to work with us to strike the balance. I see this as part of a much larger movement. In my community, we are finally opening a facility this fall to get people with mental problems out of emergency rooms, where they actually can't be treated. They can just be warehoused at, actually, great expense and risk to the employees in the emergency room. I am convinced that, if we are able to work together to tease out the expenses--Dr. McDermott talked about how incarcerating people and treating them behind bars, where so many people with mental illness end up, is 20 times more expensive than treatment. Being able to hit that sweet spot, to be able to balance treatment, to be able to have intervention with appropriate safeguards, to empower the families, and to be able to help people on a path to treatment like we would do with any other illness is very, very important. I would hope that we would be able to continue this conversation. I hope that there will be other Special Orders where we have a chance to involve people who want to explore and maybe refine some of these elements, to be able to answer questions about the necessary protections and have the give-and-take that sometimes is hard to do when we are in sort of a formalized setting. I have appreciated your willingness to tackle tough issues, to be open to suggestions, to be willing to engage others, but, most importantly, that this Congress not go home without having legislation to meet our responsibilities to refine and focus our mental health programs to get more out of the resources that we have, to provide new tools for families, and I think build on a foundation. I think the bill that you have introduced is a great start. I am encouraged that you have sparked a very robust conversation and that there are other bills that are moving forward. But I hope we can build on this to be able to get across the finish line. I look forward to continuing our conversation, whether it is here tonight, in another evening, or with our colleagues, to make sure that we are doing what we should do to correct a situation that is a national tragedy, that is unnecessary, that is wasteful and inhumane.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night Frontline on PBS had a compelling documentary on the opioid and heroin epidemic. We are now seeing politicians diving in. Governors across the country are sounding the alarm. It is being featured by Presidential candidates in both parties. President Obama's budget has some very good suggestions highlighting tools to reduce drug overuse, overdose, evidence-based prevention programs, prescription drug monitoring, and prescription take-back events. There are a variety of things that are going in the right direction. Yet, it is a little frustrating for me that the simplest, cheapest, safest solution to help these troubled people is not embraced: medical marijuana. Actually, the public is largely there. For the last 20 years, the tide has been building for medical marijuana, even as the crisis on opioids has slowly started to take hold. It began with voter approval in California in 1996 and in Oregon 2 years later. Now 23 States have legalized medical marijuana, and two-thirds of Americans live in States where at least some form of medical marijuana is authorized. There is a reason for this movement. A meta-analysis of 79 studies in The Journal of the American Medical Association found solid evidence that medical marijuana is effective in treating chronic pain. There is no evidence of serious side effects among medical marijuana users who are actually less likely to drink alcohol or take other painkillers. And those States with medical marijuana actually have fewer overdose deaths. Isn't this worth exploring? Especially when there is evidence that availability of medical marijuana dispensaries is associated with a significant decrease in substance abuse admissions and a reduction in opioid overdose deaths. Recently, we have even had former NFL players come out and describe how they used medical marijuana to self-medicate rather than being shot up with painkillers by team doctors and being prescribed opioid pills. What is perhaps most frustrating for me is the wrong-headed approach that prohibits Veterans Administration doctors from even talking to their patients about medical marijuana in the States where it is legal. That is ironic because the VA has its own veterans health crisis because their patients are dying from prescription overdoses at rates twice the national average. Opioid prescriptions by VA doctors have surged 270 percent over the last 12 years. They are prescribing significantly more opioids to patients suffering from PTSD and depression than other veterans, even though those are the patients most at risk of overdose and suicide. Nearly 1 million veterans who receive treatment for pain continue to consume those pills beyond 90 days. It is clear that most veterans would probably be better off if we more fully utilized medical marijuana to treat conditions of pain, depression, and PTSD. At the very least, we ought to allow the Veterans Administration doctors to work with their patients on this matter. That is why I will again be introducing my amendment that would make it clear that VA doctors in States where it is legal can work with their patients on medical marijuana. Since I first introduced this legislation, I have watched growing support on the floor of the House for an amendment that would accomplish this. There has been interest in the Senate. Veterans groups are aware of this discrimination and the Veterans Administration's sorry record when it comes to helping our veterans with these chronic conditions by using conventional painkillers that lead to addiction and death. Medical marijuana appears safer, effective, and is a low-cost way to deal with chronic pain. Nobody dies from an overdose of medical marijuana. Let's add this to our discussion, promote more effective research, and let VA doctors meet with their patients to talk about this as an alternative.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote no on H.R. 3293, the so-called ``Scientific Research in the National Interest'' Act. This bill is the latest in the House Majority's campaign to undermine science and the scientific community. The scientific peer-based, merit review process that the National Science Foundation (NSF) currently has in place is widely regarded as the ``gold standard'' for funding scientific research. This bill would add unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork to this process, but more troublingly, it would undermine our nation's basic research enterprise. The attempts to insert politics into this process have already caused our nation's scientists to shy away from high-risk, potentially high-reward research that some House members may find controversial. We must not allow elected officials to arbitrarily override expert scientific review. We have seen this type of stunt time and time again with efforts to undermine climate change science, and today, the target is on basic research. It is time to stop this charade. We should be focusing more on evidence-based, performance-based policymaking, rather than finding a solution in search of a problem.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from the moment I arrived in Congress, I have been working to rebuild and renew America. Our great country, sadly, is falling apart as it falls behind the rest of the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure as failing. I have worked to develop a plan, a vision for infrastructure for this century because people have forgotten our history and are woefully uninformed about the nature of the challenge we face and the opportunities to do it right. This doesn't need to be a partisan fight in Congress. Indeed, infrastructure used to be much more central to our mission in Congress, dating back to the postal roads mandated by the Constitution to President Eisenhower's interstate freeway system. I welcome the administration's proposal for an oil fee to invest in green infrastructure. I truly believe that President Obama is committed to investing in infrastructure. He understands its value, and he has worked to include some infrastructure investment in the Recovery Act. I think we all know that it actually should have been much larger than it was; but, nonetheless, was very helpful. The President has proposed things Congress after Congress that would fund a grander vision. Unfortunately, in the context of this Congress, they were not realistic. They had no chance of passing, probably regardless of who has control, given the nature of those proposals. Nonetheless, I welcome the administration's proposal for a $10 per barrel fee on oil to finance green infrastructure because of the timing at this point of incredibly low gas prices, flirting with $1 a gallon, high oil production, a swollen inventory. Thirty dollars per barrel has become the benchmark. Unfortunately, the new proposal was launched, as near as I can tell, without consultation with people in either party or the organizations that deal with infrastructure. It was not met with organized support on behalf of the vast array of individuals and organizations who are deeply committed to rebuilding and renewing America. It simply begs the question: Why not just raise the gas tax? The proposal I have introduced to raise the gas tax was widely supported by business, labor, professions, local government, environmentalists; indeed, it was supported by the widest collection of interest groups supporting any major initiative before Congress. When you get the truckers and AAA both saying, ``Raise taxes on motorists and truck drivers,'' that is a signal. The proposal does not have the gaps associated with an oil fee that would impose challenges on consumers of oil, like school buses or home heating, and it does provoke the petroleum industry, which has accepted reasonable gas taxes, but would oppose an oil fee. This is, however, an opportunity for us to revisit the need for investment in infrastructure, now that the administration has signaled its comfort with raising taxes on people who make under $250,000 a year. The oil fee would be the equivalent of 20 to 25 cents a gallon-- far more than the model proposal I had to phase in a 15-cent per gallon increase over 3 years. Maybe we can reengage the conversation about raising the gas tax. After 24 years, we might follow the lead of President Reagan, who led an effort to raise the gas tax in 1983. After we raise the gas tax, we should index it and then abolish it and replace it with a more sustainable mechanism for funding transportation in the future. I appreciate the administration starting this conversation related to infrastructure finance. Maybe we can have a broader effort to work cooperatively on an issue that is gaining traction at the State level around the country. Over a dozen States have raised their gas tax, including a number of red Republican States. This will be something that meets the needs of America now--and in the future--and I hope it is time for us to refocus on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress committed to helping the Federal Government do a better job dealing with water and sanitation. We have had great success internationally raising the profile and directing more money in a more effective way to deal with water and sanitation in poor countries, making a difference in millions of lives. In the United States, we often take those conditions for granted. But as has been demonstrated recently in Flint, Michigan, we do so at our peril because we have serious problems right here in the United States. It is not just Flint, Michigan. There are up to 10 million lead water lines that remain where even a slight change in the water chemistry, even from just repairing it, can damage lead pipes enough to start contaminating people's water. What is underground and out of sight is actually in worse condition than our crumbling roads and bridges. America leaks more water than we drink every day. In the aftermath of the recession, we have seen States cut drinking water budgets and staff. The Federal Government had cut our investment in drinking water infrastructure by more than 80 percent by 1980. This, despite the fact that ours is a growing country with aging infrastructure that was rated a D by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their latest report. Now, I am pleased that the administration in its budget would put a little extra money to help replace lead pipes. Sadly, that is being financed by cutting even more from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, essentially at the expense of keeping water clean in the first place. We should look at our water infrastructure as an entire system and increased Federal investment is long overdue. We would have to increase our funding 500 percent to reach the level of spending during Jimmy Carter's presidency. I have long advocated the development of a water infrastructure trust fund. We have reintroduced a bipartisan, budget-neutral solution to create a dedicated water infrastructure trust fund to provide additional revenue to State and local water and sanitation projects. It is financed by a voluntary program where businesses that rely heavily on clean water, like the beverage industry, for example, that have a keen interest in maintaining water infrastructure would, on a voluntary basis, pay a miniscule fee. In exchange, they would be designated as supporting the clean water trust fund. It is estimated that this could generate up to $7 billion annually in new revenue that could go to State and local governments as grants and loans, which in turn could leverage even more money. This legislation would also give direction and resources for the EPA to deal with the affordability gap. We can actually finance much of the needed water and infrastructure improvements, but we are hamstrung because there is understandable reluctance to raise rates that fall too much on the poorest of citizens. Thus, we are in a cycle of unpaid water and sewer bills that leaves nobody with satisfactory alternatives. This legislation would give more money to State and local governments, allowing them to leverage additional money and to focus on ways to deal with a very substantial problem of low income for whom access to safe drinking water and sanitation is every bit as fundamental a human right as what we are doing to help poor people overseas achieve. Mr. Speaker, I celebrate Secretary Clinton and a number of our colleagues going to Flint, Michigan, to focus on the problem. I applaud people who are looking at where the system failed, but I would hope we would pay as much attention to the systematic failure of Congress and at the State level to attach priority to this fundamental building block for a livable community. I hope my colleagues will join me, not just in cosponsoring H.R. 4468, but enacting the trust fund and fighting for budgets that represent the resources this crisis demands.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, I voted against H.R. 1675, the Capital Markets Improvements Act and H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protections Act--both missed opportunities to garner the strong bipartisan consensus needed to appropriately refine our nation's financial oversight rules. While I am sympathetic to concerns of small businesses, and remain ready to work with my Republican colleagues to address those concerns, I continue to support strong, targeted oversight of our financial markets. Strong consumer and market protection regulations, administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are needed to prevent the risky practices that badly damaged our economy during the Great Recession. These rules are also necessary to put a stop to the predatory lending practices and financial gimmickry that wreaked havoc on the economic security of Oregon's working families. These two bills exemplify the Republican leadership's unwillingness to work with Democrats to strengthen our nation's financial oversight. It is clear that these bills were unnecessarily partisan, making them unpalatable in the Senate and veto targets for President Obama. While there are elements of H.R. 1675 that I have voted for in the past and continue to support, the bill that was brought to the floor yesterday included poison pills, like requiring a review and full commission vote on every major rule every 10 years under full Administrative Procedure Act-style requirements would severely hinder the SEC's ability to monitor markets and protect investors. The vast majority of Democrats rejected a similar proposal in the previous Congress. Today, the Financial Services Committee leadership forced a partisan vote on H.R. 766 by including provisions that would restrict the ability of government watchdogs to investigate and hold accountable those who perpetrate financial wrong-doing. Appropriate financial rules should protect American families and the broader economy without being unduly burdensome to small businesses and innovative entrepreneurs. When the Administration misses this mark, it is my hope that Congress can work in a constructive, bipartisan manner to refine regulations, tailoring them to strike an appropriate balance between business and consumer needs. Unfortunately, this week's efforts fail to meet that standard.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, water infrastructure is a local issue-- from a giant sinkhole in Gresham, OR, to poisoned water in Flint, MI. For too long, we've let critical water systems simply fall apart. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave our nation's wastewater and drinking water infrastructure a grade of ``D'' in their most recent report card. While our clean water needs are estimated to be nearly $15 billion a year, appropriations for clean water infrastructure have averaged less than over $2 billion a year since 2000. Drinking water infrastructure is in no better shape. The EPA estimates that we need to invest over $19 billion annually to ensure the provision of safe tap water, while Congress appropriates less than $1 billion. As seen by the recent lead water crisis in Flint, MI, the costs of inaction are not just numbers in a needs assessment. Our failure to adequately invest in aging infrastructure is having detrimental effects on our health and economy. Last year alone, Americans across the country suffered from more than 240,000 water main breaks and saw overflowing combined sewer systems--causing contamination, property damage, disruptions in the water supply, and massive traffic jams. In order to address this, the Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act will provide needed revenue for states and local governments to make overdue investments in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure and will also take a hard look at the systemic challenges affecting access to safe water in low-income populations. The Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act allows businesses to choose to place a small label on their products indicating their commitment to protecting America's clean water, contributing $0.03 to the Water Infrastructure Trust Fund for each unit bearing the label. The Trust Fund revenue will be distributed to the states as grants and loans through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to help public water systems finance wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The legislation also commissions an EPA study of the water affordability gap facing low-income populations and an analysis of solutions to systemic barriers affecting access to safe water systems. Congress must do more, not only to meet the huge need for water infrastructure investments, but also to understand why failing infrastructure hits the most vulnerable communities the hardest.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Marijuana Advertising in Legal States Act of 2016 or the ``MAILS'' Act, which creates an exception to the Controlled Substances Act to allow for the written advertisement of an activity, involving marijuana, if it is in compliance with state law. the last few years, voters in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Alaska overwhelmingly approved initiatives to legalize the adult use and sale of marijuana. Additionally, 23 states, the District of Columbia and Guam have legalized full medical marijuana programs, and 17 more states have approved more limited medical marijuana programs. In many of these states, state-approved dispensaries are up and running, bringing the industry out of the shadows of the black market and creating a safe, regulated system in much of America. Despite this progress, marijuana remains stuck in the past as a Schedule I substance at the federal level. Recognizing this discrepancy, the Obama Administration issued a memorandum in 2013 which explained that so long as certain enforcement criteria were met, federal law enforcement would not interfere with state legal marijuana activity. Congress then followed suit and barred the Department of Justice from expending resources in contravention of state medical marijuana laws. According to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is unlawful for anyone to place an advertisement for a Schedule I substance, including a medical marijuana product, in any newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication even if that activity is legal under state law. This creates a confusing reality in states where marijuana is legal for marijuana businesses that seek to advertise in local newspapers, as well as for the many newspapers around the country that rely on advertising revenue. In December 2015, the United States Postal Service (USPS) declared that it is illegal to mail any items, including newspapers, which contain advertisements offering to buy or sell marijuana, even if in compliance with a state law. Small businesses and community newspapers rely on USPS to reach their customers and the USPS policy could have the effect of stopping all written marijuana advertisements in states that have already made the decision to legalize marijuana. This contradicts the will of the voters in these states as well as recent directives from the Obama Administration and Congress. There are certainly important questions that need to be answered about how to best regulate marijuana and advertisements, to ensure it does not get in the hands of children and that it is delivered in a safe, regulated system. It is not the job of USPS to answer these questions. Until we can change the way that marijuana is treated at the federal level to allow the federal government to be a constructive partner in answering these questions, this legislation will help to ensure that they stay out of the way.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the armed occupation by out-of-State invaders in eastern Oregon is now in its second month. There has already been violence, loss of life, damage to Federal property, and the total disruption of this small, quiet community in far eastern Oregon. From this unfortunate and unnecessary spectacle, there are some lessons and conclusions to be drawn: First and foremost, it must be made clear that the armed takeover of government or of private facilities for grievances real or imagined is absolutely unacceptable and won't be tolerated; Second, while it is easy to be an armchair quarterback and second- guess the authorities, I think it is clear that a firmer response to the earlier Bundy law breaking in Nevada--owing the Federal Government over $1 million and resisting Federal authorities at gunpoint--might have prevented or at least not encouraged this latest outrage, which includes some of his family members coming to Oregon from Nevada; This is a call to action for Americans who treasure our public spaces--our parks, our forests, our rangelands, our marine sanctuaries. These are treasures that belong to all Americans, and it is important for us to understand what we have and to understand what is at stake for forces that would threaten our heritage; If America somehow decides to give up these treasures, as some demand, special consideration would not be given to the rich--putting it up for the highest bidder--or for people who just happen to be in the proximity. Special consideration should be given to the Native Americans, who ought to be first in line, who have been systematically shortchanged by the Federal Government, which has denied them their treaty rights, systematically taking away land that was promised to them by treaties that were negotiated--presumably in good faith-- ratified by Congress, and signed by past Presidents; And it is not just enough to enforce the law. We should recover damages from lawbreakers who tear up the landscape, degrade wildlife habitat, and destroy property. I have introduced legislation that would allow the Federal Government--in fact, not allow, but require the Federal Government--to make payments to State and local governments that have had to incur significant costs because of threats to Federal property. H.R. 4431 would reimburse State and local officials for these extraordinary costs incurred due to threats to Federal property. When we talk in trillions here in Washington, D.C., maybe talk of $100,000 here or $1 million there doesn't sound like very much. To the State of Oregon it matters. And, for this tiny community, a few hundred thousand dollars has a significant impact on the local taxpayer and their services. They shouldn't be made to pay the bill. I'm also working with Congressman Thompson, to close a loophole that would not allow us to recover for damages to Federal facilities by these lawbreakers, this legislation would allow the Federal Government to go back to recover its costs from people who willfully inflict this damage. Let's act now, put this matter to rest, make the people in eastern Oregon whole, and discourage such reckless and dangerous behavior in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the UAS industry is booming in Oregon and nationwide, but our laws and regulations are stifling innovation instead of encouraging it, forcing American companies to look overseas to test new technology. We must not miss the opportunity to harness the benefits and utility of UAS technology, which will bring advances in safety and efficiency in nearly every sector of the economy. Today, I am introducing the Commercial UAS Modernization Act, which creates an interim framework that will promote American innovation in the rapidly growing field of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and will facilitate the safe integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in the process of creating a regulatory framework for commercial UAS operation, the FAA's existing approach to UAS integration and regulation has been piecemeal at best. As a result, we are behind other countries in developing a regulatory regime that encourages growth of this burgeoning industry, and U.S. companies are being overtaken by competition in Canada, Europe, and Asia. This legislation offers a uniform and comprehensive approach that offers our drone industry a sensible path forward. The UAS industry expects to produce more than 100,000 U.S. jobs, with $82 billion in economic impact, within a decade after these regulations are complete. The potential social and economic benefits of this technology go far beyond package delivery and capturing photos and video footage. Around the world, UAS are being used to inspect critical infrastructure and conduct land surveys, fight forest fires and support emergency and disaster response, transport medical samples and supplies, analyze and manage crops, detect oil spills and predict volcanic eruptions, catch poachers, and deliver high-speed Internet to remote or underserved areas. Full integration of UAS into the national airspace could revolutionize the way entire sectors of our economy and governments function. The Commercial UAS Modernization Act provides a much-needed update to federal rules, making it clear that flying smartphones should not be regulated like Predator drones.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for 32 days armed militants have occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. Acting on behalf of a misguided anti-public lands agenda and against the wishes of the local community, these extremists have endangered lives, damaged property, and disrupted society. The armed takeover of a federal facility is simply not the way we do things in Oregon, and is not how things have been done at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge--a national treasure cherished by birders and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts and a model of collaboration and partnership with the local community. The situation has been allowed to continue for far too long, and the costs of this dramatic and dangerous incident will be innumerable to the federal government, the Bums Paiute Tribe, the state, and the local community. One particular manifestation of this cost is the financial expense to state and local law enforcement, which has spent an estimated $100,000 per week responding to this incident. This is why, today, I am introducing a bill to help assuage some of the financial hardship borne by state and local taxpayers in protecting the community during this challenging time. Because the incident involves a federal facility, the federal government made decisions about the timing and manner of addressing this ordeal. Ultimately, those decisions have been very expensive for Oregon and the local community. My bill will allow the federal government to ease this burden within 180 days by reimbursing reasonable costs associated with state and local law enforcement's response to this incident. Under my bill, the federal government will have the authority to pursue civil action seeking to recover those costs from the armed militia members to make sure taxpayers aren't on the hook. Placing the burden of these costs on the militants is the right thing to do. It will send a strong signal that an armed takeover of a federal facility is unacceptable and will result in consequences. In the meantime, however, these communities already face resource constraints and an immediate federal reimbursement will help to address at least some of the hardships caused by this irresponsible and unfortunate incident.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3662-- the most recent attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear agreement. This legislation would explicitly prevent the United States from implementing its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We are all concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran, given its history and nebulous relationship with the United States. This is why I have consistently supported a diplomatic solution with other world powers, as sanctions do not work when applied by the U.S. alone. The JCPOA is our best path forward to enforce a non-nuclear future for Iran, particularly as we have countries, including China and Russia, join with us. We're going to need to be diligent. Iran does have a number of internal conflicts and bad actors. The clerics and some members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are destructive components within a country whose people have long suffered from the effects of sanctions. There is no indication that destroying this agreement would put us in a better position to prevent Iran from revitalizing its nuclear program. If the agreement falls apart, we can always sanction later. In the meantime, we ought to continue to give diplomacy a chance.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one recalls the state of the Union that President Obama inherited upon taking office: overwhelming problems occasioned by the near collapse of the economy, 700,000 jobs lost before he was even in office half a month. It would take many months more to arrest the slide. There were fierce battles, arguments about whether we should spend money to try to help people and industries. His work was complicated by the announcement early on by the Republican leader in the Senate that his number one goal was not to fix the economy or deal with health care or the environment or national security; it was to prevent President Obama from being reelected to a second term. Time has shown that the money that was spent was critical, and most independent experts agree that we should have invested more heavily in things like rebuilding and renewing America. Even so, our performance has been better than any of the other developed economies. Those results were achieved with divisions and arguments that continue to be played out today on the national political stage as there are people seeking the Presidency later this year. But my hope is that, as the President addresses this Chamber tonight, there might be an opportunity to move past some of the divisions and controversy. My hope is, as the President looks up in the gallery and sees the First Lady, that he might pause and acknowledge her important work in health and nutrition; that he might spend just 3 minutes on a topic that can bring people together; that he would admit that we as a government still pay too much to the wrong people to grow the wrong crops in the wrong places, that we would be far better off if we weren't subsidizing people to grow food that actually makes Americans sick. I would hope that he would propose that the Federal Government help more farmers and ranchers with research and market access at home and abroad. Let's pay those farmers and ranchers to protect water quality and water quantity. I would hope that he would propose that we subsidize more healthy food in our schools and for senior citizens and low-income people. I would hope that he would acknowledge the revolution that is taking place in food and agricultural thought and policy in this country, as documented in the recent PBS special, ``In Defense of Food,'' with Michael Pollan. There is an exciting national movement promoting value-added agriculture, healthy food, animal welfare, and environmental protection that will strengthen rural and small town America and provide more satisfaction for the men and women who work in agriculture. It would only take 3 minutes, but it would be an important milestone for this revolution of food and farm policy that cannot happen soon enough.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today is the ninth day of armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon--lawless, reckless behavior. As the Audubon Society points out: putting one of America's most important wildlife refuges at risk and threatening Federal employees. David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, points out they are trampling on the rights of every American, they are the opposite of conservatives, and they will continue to bully, threaten, and test the limits of civil society until they are stopped. Jenkins urged the Obama administration to follow Teddy Roosevelt's advice that the law must be enforced with resolute firmness. I fully understand policy differences, that compromises must be made and that there will be mistakes. I have worked with my Republican colleague Greg Walden, whose neighboring district goes all the way to the Idaho border, as we struggled to make broad Federal policy work better for everyone as we spent several years developing a vision for Mount Hood that included protections for wilderness and practices for infrastructure and management. It is an ongoing effort. But with 323 million Americans, diverse landscapes, and philosophies that are buried, there are going to be struggles and differences that continue. The answer is to keep working to find common ground, like we did with our staff and families on a 3-day hike around that magnificent mountain. For that moment, Mount Hood wasn't the dividing line between our districts; it was a point around which we could come together to agree and work to make things better. It brought us together. That is exactly what needs to happen now. There are tremendous challenges in our State of Oregon. We have a wildlife refuge in the Klamath Basin with a historic opportunity to remove unnecessary dams that even the private owner doesn't feel it could maintain, to help restore damage to salmon runs, to be able to deal with a parched wildlife basin in the middle of a desert. The Federal Government has promised far more in that basin to the stakeholders than it can deliver. There is a huge responsibility for all of us in the Federal Government to help unwind this unsustainable situation. Native Americans, particularly in the Northwest, despite solemn treaty rights promised to them by the Federal Government and ratified by Congress, have long been abused and ignored. They deserve to be taken seriously and their rights respected. There are opportunities, like dam removal, that signal a winning opportunity to keep faith with our environmental responsibilities and treaty obligations to Native Americans, to wildlife, and to the surrounding area. Far from being a threat to the region's economy, the removal, in an environmentally responsible way, of the four dams which generate little energy will provide hundreds of family wage jobs for years that will inject badly needed money into the region in the deconstruction phase, to say nothing of the long-term benefits for tourism, recreation, and enhanced environment. Let's seize the opportunity in the Klamath. Let's take the opportunity to implement the long-term vision and water restoration for the Malheur Basin. These are items where hundreds and hundreds of people have labored in good faith for tens of thousands of hours. They don't need armed outsiders to come to Oregon, threatening public safety and the precious resources for their own political gains. We ought to be able, in our region, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, discord, and the specter of dissension, anger, and a continued sense of victimhood and loss. We don't have to do that. Let's build on the progress that we have established and work together to make these people and ourselves winners.