Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor this evening to speak about an armed standoff that is taking place in my State of Oregon. This is the ninth day of armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge where we have some lawless, reckless behavior on the part of out-of-State zealots who have taken over a Federal resource. This is really hard to comprehend for a moment. As has been mentioned by numerous commentators, imagine what would happen if armed protesters who were of a different color or of a different religion occupied a Federal facility in Chicago or Washington, D.C., or Philadelphia. We would not tolerate that behavior. We would watch people move in to remove them. And yet, here, we are talking about the ninth day with impunity these people have undertaken to exert their own vision for an amazing region, this high desert plateau in eastern Oregon, a region of vast, arid, high desert with many key lakes and wetlands, that is the location of a wildlife refuge that was created in 1908 by President Teddy Roosevelt. It was deemed important to protect this critical flyway, this wildlife habitat. We found people there slaughtering wildlife to take the feathers to decorate women's hats. Now, I understand that there are some people who are involved who have some frustrations about issues of management of Federal resources. I appreciate that. This is a large, vast country, with 323 million people. In much of the West, a significant portion of the land is owned, managed, and administered by the Federal Government on behalf of all 323 million of us. I have no doubt that occasionally there is frustration, there is a difference of philosophy. Occasionally, there are mistakes made. One of the problems we face is that my Republican friends in Congress for years have refused to adequately fund these programs, being able to take care of them appropriately, and that leads to frustrations as well. But I think it is important to note that, contrary to the actions of these armed thugs, this land doesn't belong to them. It doesn't belong to the 7,000 residents of Malheur County or even 4 million Oregonians. This land is in trust for 323 million Americans. If we overrule these interests and get the Federal Government out of this equation, it is not going to revert to a few of the people in the region. The people who have first claim on this land are the Paiute Indians, who resided on it for thousands of years before the Federal Government came in and crowded them out. This vast high desert area is worthy of protection, whether it is monument or wilderness. Many Oregonians, including people in eastern and central Oregon, agree that this is worthy of protection. I met with a number in central Oregon this year who were organized, Friends of the Owyhee, for instance, people who think that this largest area in the lower 48 States of pristine beauty, of great environmental import, is the largest unprotected area in the lower 48 States. Now, I listened to my friend from Oregon who represents the area, Congressman Walden, express his concern and frustration. He talked about his challenges with the Steens Wilderness Area and talked about his deep concern that the administration may consider a monument in the future for this area, monument status for hundreds of thousands of these acres. It is interesting to note, I was involved with that process, but not as deeply as my friend Congressman Walden, who I think can justly claim credit for having been the driving force behind protecting the Steens Wilderness Area. But it never would have achieved wilderness status without the prospect, the looming threat, of a monument status. I was pleased in a small way to have helped facilitate that going forward. We are all better off as a result of the process that took place. I was rather surprised that, in the course of his extensive comments on the floor of the House a week ago, while talking about the cooperative effort and the value of the work for Steen's Wilderness, he did not reference at all the process that has been taking place in the Malheur Basin, where we have seen advocates for local ranching interests, environmentalists, and people in the refuge management itself all come together from 2010 to 2013, developing a vision to protect this area, having one of the largest water projects in the country over the next 15 years: a plan, a vision, a commitment. And it was done on a cooperative basis. You can review what is going on with the ongoing media coverage or with these armed, out-of-State thugs who have invaded the wildlife refuge with no hint of what has happened there to be able to build a consensus, a vision, to protect and enhance this area. The notion somehow that government ought to get out of the way and turn this all over to the private sector is a bit strained. First of all, it should be noted that about half the jobs in this little county of 7,000 people are themselves government jobs. Many of them in the wildlife refuge are some of the best jobs in the region. They may not make much difference in Portland, Eugene, Seattle, or Washington, D.C., but in a region like this, it is having hundreds of family-wage jobs with good benefits, pensions. It makes a huge difference to the local economy. I am concerned that we are just passing over this expectation that we have an opportunity to be able to work with the affected people, move it forward, protecting this area as opposed to having folks who are threatening public employees and who have engaged on a personal basis in threatening people. We have had to shut down a number of government operations. It is sad, it is unfortunate, and it is wrong. We don't need outsiders coming into Oregon or politicians enabling or encouraging people to behave in this reckless, lawless fashion. We should, as a matter of fact, cut them off. There should be no electricity to the compound. They shouldn't be using the computers of public employees. We shouldn't have them ordering out for pizza or delivering food. This is goofy. It wouldn't happen in any other area if armed thugs took over a Federal facility. I have great sympathy with my friend and colleague, Peter DeFazio, who felt that, by the Federal Government not acting on the Nevada lawbreakers who refused to pay the heavily discounted grazing fees--a fraction of what they would pay if it were in private hands--and allowing this to go on unabated, they are encouraging this lawless, reckless behavior. I am pleased this evening that I am joined by my friend and colleague from California, Congressman Huffman, who, prior to coming to Congress, had a long, distinguished career dealing with environmental protection and dealing with balancing these interests and solving problems while we protect public interests. I yield to the gentleman for his comments this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your joining me in this conversation on your past activity and what we need to do in the future. You are right. These are, if done correctly--and you have had some of these experiences in California--huge economic opportunities. There are 47 million bird watchers in this country. They spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion a year. In the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, almost 24,000 people made that long, long, long, long journey. And I will guarantee you they wouldn't have been sightseeing there but for the wildlife refuge. You referenced the Klamath. It is a lost opportunity if we are not on our toes. Removing those four dams that have obstructed the flow of spawning salmon, prohibiting us from meeting our obligation to Native Americans, would create hundreds and hundreds of family-wage jobs for years in northern California. It is just one more example of where Congress is missing in action and where Congress hasn't appropriately funded these agencies to be able to fully meet the opportunities. It is hard for me to express my wonderment that some people will come to the floor and somehow try and celebrate the Hammond family, people who were convicted of arson and who have a record of having broken the law before. Public records show behavior that is not that of people you want for your neighbors. These folks do not have clean hands. Yet, we have out- of-State, armed thugs taking over this facility to somehow talk about these convicted felons and undercut this process. I am hopeful that we can work together for people to focus on the opportunities and have the administration step up, act responsibly, cut these people off and remove them, and to take action against other lawbreakers like we would in other areas of the country. I appreciate you joining me today to have a little bit of conversation here to try and round out the picture that is missing from the media. It is probably not going to get us on Fox News, but these are things that the American public needs to know. Because there is a path forward. There has been a regional consensus that has developed. There is a vision to protect the wildlife refuge and its economic activities and future. It is one that we should support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, America is in the middle of a bikeshare revolution: 13 new bikeshare systems launched in 2014 and 11 more launched in 2015, bringing the national total to approximately 80. More than 10 million people rode a bikeshare bicycle last year. Systems are opening in large metropolitan regions like Washington, DC and New York, as well as smaller communities like Dayton and Boise. The increased commercial investment around bikeshare stations and networks drives economic development in these communities. Some of these existing bikeshare programs received federal monies to get off the ground, but the lack of an established funding source has proved an impediment to other projects across the country. Since the term ``bikeshare'' is not defined in U.S. Code or described by law as a form of transit, bikeshare systems and transportation officials alike now operate in a gray area. Congress needs to act to clarify that bikeshare projects are eligible for federal funding, providing certainty to investors, business owners, and commuters. That is why today I am introducing the Bikeshare Transit Act. This legislation will eliminate this gray area by defining bikeshare in statute and making bikeshare systems eligible to receive funding to enhance related public transportation service or transit facilities. They will also be listed as an eligible project under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Additionally, the Bikeshare Transit Act will allow federal funding to be used for acquiring or replacing bikeshare related equipment and the construction of bikeshare facilities. The Bikeshare Transit Act will remove significant barriers facing new bikeshare projects as well as those existing bikeshare programs applying for federal funding. This legislation underscores that bikeshare programs drive economic development and are an important part of America's transportation system.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House considered H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, and H.R. 1155, the SCRUB Act, pieces of legislation with the primary purpose of dismantling and undermining the federal rulemaking and regulatory process. I voted against both of these bills. Throughout my career, as an administrator and policymaker at the local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that are difficult to comply with. There are ways to make some regulations more efficient and easier to navigate, but we must do so in a way that protects public health, maintains our environmental protections, and ensures fair market interactions. These bills, however, are far from the mark They both would implement a ``cut-go'' approach that would require every new rule to come with the removal of another, even in cases of emergency or imminent harm to public health. This approach is absurd. Regulations often build on each other, evolving and sometimes rapidly responding to emerging challenges, and this type of restriction will only threaten the process and undermine the ability of agencies to effectively protect public health, public safety, the environment and more. The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, through its barriers to consent decrees, through its imposition of a moratorium on implementation until a rule is available online for six months, and through its requirement that all rules be summarized in 100 words online, regardless of how complex, only adds additional, unnecessary burdens on the rulemaking process, without actually improving it. The underlying assumption behind these bills is that regulations are unwelcome and burdensome on communities and the economy. I frequently, however, hear from industry in my community and around the country about the importance of many government regulations, in equalizing the playing field and setting important guidelines based on science that allow them be good actors in their communities. There are certainly outdated regulations, and there is always room for greater efficiencies, and the creation of more performance based, flexible regulatory processes. These bills however, will not get us closer to that goal, and are dangerous to public safety, to health and the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, with the odd drama playing out in Oregon where armed thugs have taken over a Federal wildlife facility, it is important to reflect on what the wildlife refuge system is all about. If these people had any argument with the President, it was with President Roosevelt, who 108 years ago established the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as a response to protect natural resources, especially the slaughter of wild birds for feathers to adorn women's hats. It is ironic that the President, who in his younger days participated in the slaughter of over 6 million buffalo that roamed the Midwest plains on a magnificent ecostructure, realized the necessity of protecting these resources. Today we benefit from the foresight of this conservation President who provided the cornerstone of environmental protection that enriches us all. The notion that somehow this is the ``wild west,'' where people can do with public land what they want, is thoroughly discredited. This mind-set from the 1800s that there were endless, wide-open spaces, where people could do what they wished, when they wished, where they wished, is tinged with regret and tragedy. We took away the land from Native Americans that our government had given to them in solemn treaty, ratified by Congress. The mind-set that public lands of the West were to be exploited as rapidly as possible is still embodied in the Mining Act of 1872, which essentially allows anyone, including foreign mining operations, to exploit our country's mineral resources at basically no cost and with no enforceable obligation to repair the damage they inflicted. The West is now blighted with thousands of abandoned mines and oil and gas wells that will risk being a permanent scar on the landscape. While private profit was pursued, the public was left with the consequences and the cost of cleanup, if it ever occurs. The longstanding battles over American rangeland between competing owners and between competing uses, like cattle and sheep, were not pretty. There is no doubt that there are still significant problems dealing with public land management, in part because the rules of the game are still set by the Mining Act of 1872 and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. All but the most reckless individuals would agree that if these statutes were written today they would look fundamentally different with more protections and clarity. It was into this void that Teddy Roosevelt stepped, declaring critical national monuments. He established wildlife refuges to benefit countless generations to come. These amazing treasures are not just scenic wonders. They hold extraordinarily valuable habitat for wildlife, waterfowl, helping preserve the land and the water and the ecosystem that goes far beyond what is simply spectacular to look at. This is America's heritage. We struggle on an ongoing basis to recover from the reckless, thoughtless exploitation of the last two centuries. The vast majority of the American public supports this effort, even if they never visit the remote Western regions. Indeed, the fact that they are often inaccessible is the only way that they are preserved. Imagine tour buses, motorized vehicles, hordes of tourists, their infrastructure and their litter, and the destructive effects that would have. The sideshow with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge obscures a much larger and important public policy: protecting our heritage, enhancing it, and avoiding reckless behavior of a few that will penalize generations to come. That is why the Harney Basin Wetlands Initiative of people in that region, facilitated by the refuge between 2010 and 2013, was a textbook example of collaboration, where all the stakeholders created a vision and a 20-year plan for the refuge and the surrounding landscape, including the biggest wetland restoration project ever undertaken. It would be valuable for us to look behind the headlines to the facts on the ground, the history of the resource, the struggle for protection, the tremendous benefits for all Americans, and what the stakeholders in that region accomplished together.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, traditionally we start the new year on a note of hope. Notwithstanding troubled headlines and difficulties home and abroad, the new year is an opportunity to consider the future afresh, to reflect on opportunities, past accomplishments, and new opportunities. I appreciate President Obama beginning the new year with a continued focus on gun safety. His modest proposal was greeted with predictable opposition and scorn as some Republican politicians attempted to distort it all out of proportion and to change the subject to a nonissue: confiscation of the guns of law-abiding Americans when, in fact, virtually all responsible American gun owners support reasonable background checks to make it more difficult for people we all agree should not be armed to get guns. It is interesting to speculate on what would have been the response in today's superheated, contentious political climate with the efforts of a generation ago to reduce the carnage on our highways from unnecessary auto deaths or the hundreds of thousands of people who became addicted to cigarettes and died of cancer and heart disease. There would have been screams of outrage about the nanny state and political correctness, that the government was going to take cigarettes away from people because it knew what was best for them. It was going to force people to pay unconscionable levels of tax that would fall on the poor, that a more aggressive auto engineering program was the government telling the private sector and the consumer what was best for them, that it would drive up the cost of automobiles, and that it would have law enforcement interfere with people having an innocent drink on a night on the town. Most telling would have been the argument that this really wouldn't make any difference, that none of these steps would stop people from smoking or reckless driving on the roadways. People would still die. Those excuses for inaction are demonstrably false a generation later. We have cut the rates of adult smoking in half and saved millions of lives. The carnage on our highways has been dramatically reduced and American families are safer. It is important to have perspective going forward. Yes, there is no single solution to gun violence. But the fact remains that the United States is unique among developed countries, being unable to protect our families from unacceptable levels of death at the hands of the deranged or the careless. There are things we can do to make a difference, and the public is willing to accept them. I begin this new year hopeful that we don't have to accept Capitol Hill as an island of denial, whether it is the threat from climate change or the potential to do something about gun violence to make our families safer. Last year, there were times when we in Congress came together and produced some constructive results. At the State and local level, people are not waiting for our Republican colleagues to come to their senses to deal with carbon pollution or gun violence. They are taking action. I am hopeful that we will be able to broaden the conversation about what, in fact, we can do: tone down the rhetoric and find steps on issues that are both contentious and even those where there is basically no disagreement but we simply haven't gotten around to taking action. There are clear opportunities for us to broaden that agenda. We can avert a crisis in Gaza from a lack of water and adequate sanitation. We could pass Representative Murphy's bipartisan mental health bill. We could link food and farm policy with new awareness and research. Let's not in 2016 have the opportunities for cooperation and progress drowned with political vitriol. Let's cooperate where we can, focus on solutions even where we can't, and set the stage for giving Americans what they deserve: a government not in denial, a Congress willing to cooperate and to face problems, large and small, so as to make progress rather than to revel in discord and hyperbole in order to win votes in contentious primaries. Let's focus on what we can get done and do it. We will feel better, and the American public will be better served.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and defund Planned Parenthood. Republicans eyeing election year points are waging yet another political battle with President Obama, without regards to current health coverage and protections for millions of families and businesses and limiting health care access for millions of women. The ACA is here and will remain throughout the tenure of President Obama as a key accomplishment of his administration. Despite dire predictions, the results of the ACA are remarkable. Our nation's uninsured rate is the lowest it's been in decades; more than 19 million Americans today have health coverage because of the ACA. Up to 129 million Americans who have pre-existing conditions no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher premiums because of their health status. Additionally, thanks to the ACA, health care prices have been rising at the slowest pace in nearly 50 years. No one pretends the ACA is perfect; I've long claimed it is in need of refinement. Congress needs to work together to improve the ACA and pass legislation that continues to make health care more affordable for Americans. It's unacceptable that we leave behind some of our most vulnerable individuals because many Republican governors refuse to expand Medicaid and extend coverage to those most in need. The obsessive targeting of Planned Parenthood funding is another reason I will vote against H.R. 3762. The amazing Planned Parenthood staff and volunteers in my community provide critical reproductive health services to more than 70,000 Oregon women annually. This legislation is yet another concerted assault against the provision of essential service to women, especially women of color and low-income status. This legislative merry-go-round must stop. We must instead focus on solutions that instead build on the promise of healthcare reform; not just to save money, but to improve the lives of Americans of all ages.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. A performance-based regulatory system would have less overall regulation, give people a target to shoot for that wouldn't have to be as contentious, and actually be able to get the job done. This would be a much more productive approach rather than legislation that isn't going to go anywhere and, frankly, shouldn't go anywhere.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I have certain sympathy to what my friend from California talked about. There are areas of being able to move forward to be able to fine-tune the regulatory system. The problem with the approach that is taken here--it has no chance of being enacted into law and includes sort of a mindless approach in a formula basis that has no reality basis going forward. We have used government regulation to be able to fine-tune legislation. Can it be done better? I have no doubt. One of the things I feel very strongly about, it is not a case of having a mindless formula, having a group of unelected bureaucrats. I find that my friends on the other side of the aisle had spasms of angst and fury about unelected bureaucrats advising Congress dealing with the Affordable Care Act to try and help maintain targets for Medicare savings, but they have referred to unelected bureaucrats in this regard. One of the things that I think is important is that we not implement a theory here that would engage us in more rulemaking, more expenses. This would effectively dramatically increase the amount of time and energy, reducing the flexibility to be able to move forward. It would be much more productive if we were focusing on the principle of performance-based regulation. Establish what it is that we are trying to do; provide the actors and actresses in the private sector and in government with achievable benchmarks to guide the behavior that we are trying to achieve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted for both the omnibus and tax extender bills that came before the House this week. They represented hard work and compromises by many on both sides of the aisle and across the advocacy community. I commend so many of my colleagues for reminding us of what we can accomplish when we work together on behalf of the American people. These bills don't just do the bare minimum to keep the government open and continue the policy status quo as we have done many times in recent years. Instead, they actually invest in important programs, many that I have supported for years and that are priorities for Oregonians. I am pleased to see the extenders legislation support research and development, and provide important tools--such as an extension of the New Markets program--to invest in our communities. The tax package increases the benefit for transit riders to the same level as the parking tax benefit, providing much-needed tax fairness, strengthening options for commuters, and eliminating an incentive to drive to work. This provision will ease congestion and road wear and make our transportation system more sustainable. The omnibus also contains robust funding for public broadcasting, animal welfare enforcement, and health and scientific research. It includes the highest-ever levels of funding for the implementation of the Water for the Poor and Water for the World Acts, for which I have fought for years. I am pleased that the bill contains many provisions that I helped champion, including language to ensure the Department of Justice stay out of the way of state medical marijuana laws, language that supports industrial hemp research programs, and increased funding for brain research. There are also many positive provisions for the environment in these bills. I am delighted that the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been reauthorized and funded at a significant increase of $144 million. This program is one of the most important tools we have to protect land and habitat, construct parks and purchase other outdoor spaces that are cherished in communities. Both bills take important steps to help us transition away from fossil fuels and allow us to meaningfully contribute in the global fight against climate change. In particular, the long-term extension of tax credits for wind and solar energy development will significantly expand the development of clean renewable energy across the country at a critical time in our struggle to reduce carbon emissions. With this support, the solar industry estimates that by 2020, it will deploy more than 20 GW of solar electricity annually. The provisions supporting wind energy will free that industry from a repeated boom-and-bust cycle caused by inaction in Congress, and will strengthen the build out of low-cost, emission-free renewable energy from coast to coast. The elimination of many of the damaging environmental riders that were proposed during the appropriations process was a major victory, measures that would have defunded the Clean Power Plan, or reduced protections for endangered species among many others. There are certainly provisions in both of these bills that I do not support. It is troubling that we are drifting away from discipline in terms of dealing with the deficit. There were many missed opportunities to reduce wasteful spending and redirect those resources to where it is more needed. We will continue to spend billions of dollars every year on a nuclear arsenal we can't afford and will not use. Through tax breaks and direct subsidies, we will also continue to directly support wildly profitable industries that do not need this support--such as agribusiness and the petroleum industry. The bills also fail to address the need for new and different revenues, such as a carbon tax and a gas tax increase to rebuild crumbling infrastructure, to protect our environment and to properly invest in social safety net programs over the long run. Both bills include provisions that on their own, I would not support. I remain unpersuaded that we need to lift the crude oil export ban. I have voted against such legislation in the past since it will not help us transition to a cleaner energy future. The inclusion of the Cybersecurity Information and Sharing Act is troubling because it fails to strike the right balance between privacy and security, or between the responsibility of the private sector and the government. The omnibus also continues an irresponsible policy rider that interferes with the District of Columbia's ability to manage the sale of marijuana to ensure safety and appropriate regulations. Finally, the extenders legislation imposes new rules and responsibilities on the overburdened staff at the Internal Revenue Service. We currently have the most efficient tax collection system in the world among developed nations, but we have been systematically destroying its ability to serve taxpayers by doing its job. I also am disappointed that the omnibus did not include a number of key spending priorities that should command support from everyone. The bill does not include an important change to wildfire spending. We should treat wildfires like other major disasters and eliminate the practice of ``fire borrowing,'' which drains agency non-fire budgets to pay for firefighting. The bill also fails to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund, the main source of federal support for preservation projects that celebrate the heritage and history of communities across America. Finally, the omnibus continues a decades long ban on federal research on the causes and factors behind gun violence. Everyone should allow researchers to study and share information about gun violence in order to promote evidence-based policies to reduce horrific incidents. Despite these shortcomings, however, I support the overall package. On the whole, it's balanced and includes meaningful provisions that will support priorities important to Oregonians and across the country. I'm hopeful this is an indication that going forward, Congress can work across the aisle and compromise, so that we can do our jobs for the American people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult process creating this package. I commend Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi working with the White House and our friends in the Senate to put together a package that actually may secure support and passage from people on both sides. Tomorrow, we are going to consider an omnibus bill that, on balance, I think is a very fair compromise, given the composition of this Congress and the challenges that we are facing. I am particularly interested in the unprecedented support for neuroscience, something I have worked on for a long time, and the significant funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a priority of people on both sides of the aisle, but it has been bottled up. We will be talking more about that tomorrow. As it relates to the bill that we are going to have before us in a few minutes, I wish that it had dealt more aggressively with the question of the revenue needs of this country, something I have consistently supported before I joined the Ways and Means Committee and what we are going to have to be addressing in the future. It is important to focus on the elements, I think, in the bill that warrant my support for it. First and foremost, it provides certainty for provisions that are important to a wide variety of our constituents and interests that ultimately were going to be funded one way or another. It harkened back to the saga we had of the doc fix, the SGR, the sustainable growth rate that we forced people to jump through hoops year after year. In this case, we are going to provide some important certainty for areas that invest in the future that I have spent a long time working on in terms of wind, solar, the new market tax credits, the short-line railroads. My friend from Massachusetts talked about a project we have worked on for years, transit parity; and being able to settle the books on that and move forward, I think, is very, very important. It even is a little start on energy efficiency for commercial buildings that I hope we can do better. Emerging industries like American-produced cider get a tremendous benefit, incorporating the CIDER Act that I have been working on. I would call special attention to something again my friend from Massachusetts referenced, and that is the provisions in this bill that relate to low-income working Americans. The earned income tax credit and the child tax credit were set to expire in 2017. This impacts 16 million people, raising them above poverty or at least getting to the poverty level, of which half of those are children, 8 million children. In my State, it is 164,000 families, some of Oregon's most vulnerable working poor. Now, leaving this out until 2017 I think plays Russian roulette with it, and it would be a mistake. No better deal is likely. I think it is important to move forward on it and protect it now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been deeply concerned about the long-term trends of our failing to come forward with revenue to pay for America's priorities. I found the Bush tax cuts a disaster. I have repeatedly brought before my friends in Congress proposals to actually fund our priorities. I look forward to doing so again, either stand-alone or in the context of comprehensive tax reform. I am prepared, however, today to support the provisions before us. First of all, I think the cost ought to be put in perspective because these items are ones that have been routinely approved year in and year out, not particularly paid for, and they are ones that will be approved again. My friend, the distinguished minority whip, talked about it is better to do just 2 years. Doing it on an ongoing basis for 2 years continues to have the same cost, but provides uncertainty for people who depend upon it. There are a number of provisions here that we all worked on: wind, solar, new markets, short line, transit parity, CIDER Act. These are items people deserve to have some clarity on moving forward for numerous provisions that ultimately would pass, but we would hold people in suspense until the end. But I want to speak to one particular item here. My good friend from Texas said you don't have to worry about the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit because they don't expire until next year. Well, I would respectfully suggest that, if we followed that path and waited until 2017, not in the context of this total package, I think we are putting at risk significant tax relief for working, low-income Americans and their families. Left alone, there would be a huge price to be extracted from some in Congress who aren't particularly supportive of this Democratic priority. It would put at risk the support for these 16 million Americans, half of whom are children, and 164,000 Oregonians. I think adopting it in this package and making it permanent is a far superior approach to guarantee that. Then, by all means, let's roll up our sleeves and work on the provisions together. There is going to be lots to argue about, but in the meantime, I feel comfortable supporting those priorities--and particularly for low- and moderate-income Americans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will allow members of our military services to file their taxes long after they were due in order to provide an adequate window to claim refunds or credits that may have been owed. It has come to my attention that some members of our armed forces, in their haste to rejoin civilian life, can occasionally let fall by the wayside tax returns--particularly those that may actually have a refund. While tax liability can follow a taxpayer forever--plus interest and penalties--taxpayers only have a couple years in which to claim a credit or a refund. This legislation widens the opportunity for a veteran to look back, realize a missed opportunity, and remedy the situation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this solution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I am here to speak in support of the Customs bill that we will be facing later today. It represents significant progress over the version from earlier this summer that I opposed. Part of this progress is due to strong bipartisan support from the Senate and bipartisan give-and- take with some of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. I appreciate having worked with then-Chair Ryan and Chairman Brady to see some of these elements improve. I think it is important to recognize that the bill before us is substantially better. I know there are concerns by some of my friends about currency manipulation, which I share, and we have been pushing for and secured stronger provisions. In the Customs bill, we have elements that represent the give-and- take of a legislative process, working with the administration; and the provisions, while no one would suggest they are perfect, are substantially better than the situation we have right now. We will be better off with the currency provisions in the Customs bill. It contains many provisions that I fought for that are important to my constituents--businesses in the Pacific Northwest--dealing with unfair and outmoded tariff provisions, dealing with things like performance outerwear, that I know I share with my friend from Colorado. These are important both in terms of businesses that we represent and constituents that we represent who value that equipment-- the shoes, the outdoor apparel--and making it more affordable. Beyond the elements of making sure that the Customs system works more appropriately, there are important things that I think all of us can point to and be enthusiastic about. Both speakers have mentioned the end of the importation of products that are made by child and forced labor. There are strong provisions here to help us keep that out of the stream of commerce. My friend from Oklahoma referenced the ENFORCE Act, and there have been problems--tires, solar panels--up in my area. We have had people cheat and do so with impunity. Incorporating the provisions of the ENFORCE Act gives us the tools to go after the cheaters, to make them pay, and to protect American companies and their employees. It permanently establishes the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to centralize and enforce trade enforcement. This is an area that I have been working on throughout this process. In the Ways and Means Committee, I introduced the STRONGER Act with my friend and former fellow Northwesterner, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, to deal with ways to better enforce our agreements. Today trade agreements are complex and trade enforcement takes a long period of time. They are expensive. Frankly, we are not equipped as well as we should be to do the job of protecting Americans by enforcing and implementing these agreements. This legislation includes the trust fund for enforcement and in- country capacity building. It provides for up to $30 million a year. It may not seem like much when we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in the Federal Government, but when you consider that the budget of the United States Trade Representative is less than $60 million to do all of the things with which they are charged, being able to have a $30 million a year enforcement fund is a very significant advancement. Now, I am mindful of the extraneous climate provisions. I think they are unfortunate and should have been left out. I think my Republican friends in the future are going to be embarrassed by doing things like this, particularly when the rest of the world is in Paris, working to try and help deal with the crisis that is carbon pollution and climate change. As a practical matter, again, the result of working with the administration and people in the Senate, the provision that is stuck in the bill, yes, is confusing, but it is much better than it was in June, and I am convinced it doesn't change the status quo at all, nor prohibit other efforts in different forums, such as Paris. The optics are bad for my Republican friends, I think, and I do believe that they will rue the day for doing things like this. But, as a practical matter, we are not going to solve our climate problems through international trade. This doesn't change that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Because of the composition of the Senate and Republican opposition, we couldn't pass those things when we were in charge. So we are going to do it through other mechanisms. This Customs bill does not prevent that. I strongly urge my colleagues' favorable consideration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday friends, family, and admirers of Kate McCarthy will gather in the shadow of Mount Hood that she loved. They will share stories of young Kate as a smart, free- spirited woman, educated at Portland's Reed College, working on Mount Hood's historic Timberline Lodge the day it opened in 1937 with President Roosevelt. Her family will regale with tales of challenges of managing four interesting children, shall we say. The central narrative will be her knowledge, stewardship, and love of special places like the Columbia River Gorge, her advocacy and leadership for sound land use and above all, Mount Hood. She challenged me to focus on the entire responsibility for protecting that mountain, leading not just to 120,000 acres of wilderness, but enacting a comprehensive vision for its protection. She was a passionate, committed visionary whose influence will be felt and seen for generations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill today, which is in a much better form than the bill I opposed this summer. Yes, there are still terrible, extraneous provisions. Climate is the worst example, but that is actually going to be more of an embarrassment to my Republican friends in the future, that they trotted this out at a time that the rest of the world is working in Paris to try and deal with it. As a practical matter, it is not going to make that much difference. I disagree with my learned friend, the ranking member. There will not be a reason that we can't harmonize, for example, fuel standards. There are lots of reasons to do that. The Trans-Pacific Partnership's deforestation provisions will probably have as much impact on fighting climate change as anything that is going on in Paris. Peru is still troubling. I fought hard for those provisions. As recently as this week, I have been pushing on the administration to do more. It is certainly better than if we hadn't enacted those provisions before. As a matter of fact, that is why we have worked so hard to establish the trust fund. I appreciate the cooperation of my friend, the chairman, who has worked hard to make sure there is guaranteed funding for the next 10 years, $30 million a year, when the whole USTR budget is less than $60 million. These trade enforcement provisions are complex, they are expensive, they are tedious, and they are hard. It takes money to do it. This provision includes--the legislation that I worked on with Senator Cantwell--being able to make sure we can do a better job of enforcing it. The bill is not perfect, but it is much better than what we had this summer. It represents movement in directions that we can all take pride in. There are a number of provisions that make a huge difference for the people I represent in the Pacific Northwest as well as modernizing the Customs provisions. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that this is a step forward. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that it is, in fact, enforced in the future so that we can get the benefits people are talking about.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion about trade agreements, but there is another important piece of legislation that deals with Customs. This is an often obscure element, but it makes a huge difference to be able to manage the hundreds of billions of dollars of products that leave the United States and those that are imported. The Customs bill represents important work by our Ways and Means Committee and our colleagues in the Senate Finance Committee finally reaching conclusion. I am pleased with many of the key results. It includes items that are not in the headlines, but are very important to the people that I represent. For example, the legislation will help our growing outdoor industry by creating new definitions and tariff classifications for recreational performance outerwear. It reduces costly taxes on outdoor footwear, which both supports the outdoor recreation industry and makes it more affordable for people to get outside and enjoy our beautiful parks and trails. It includes the full ENFORCE Act, requiring immediate action to investigate and address trade cheaters and take measures to stop those who continually attempt to circumvent the penalties already imposed upon them. As our trade agreements become more complex, so, too, has trade enforcement. We can no longer rely on a handful of agencies to effectively protect our market from tax cheaters. It requires a whole government approach, and this is why it is critical to see the bill permanently establish the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to centralize and enhance trade enforcement efforts. It finally puts into law a ban on the import of goods made with child and forced labor. This will reshape markets and provide additional tools to confront horrific work conditions around the world. Very important for me, it will help ensure our trade agreements actually are enforced. A lack of enforcement is a justifiable criticism of people who are skeptical of trade agreements, who wonder is it worth the paper that it is printed on to have labor and environmental protections. Well, the greatest obstacle to enforcement has been lack of resources. Enforcing trade agreements is expensive, time consuming, and highly complex. That is why I fought hard to include in this legislation elements that I have introduced, along with Senator Maria Cantwell, the Trade STRONGER Act, which creates a trade enforcement and capacity-building fund which would not only provide more resources for the enforcement of labor and environment violations, but helps the fund managed by the USTR be accessible government-wide, not only for enforcement, but for in-country capacity building, helping our current and future trading partners implement the labor and environmental provisions they have committed to. This is an important step forward because, regardless of what one feels about a particular trade treaty, I think everyone agrees they ought to be enforced. This Customs bill, in addition to promoting the trade process more effectively and providing relief for some inequitable treatment for products so important to my constituents, establishes more resources to make sure our trade agreements are, in fact, enforced. This has been the result of long and arduous negotiations, but done in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill. I particularly want to thank the efforts of Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, who have worked with me in a spirit of cooperation to make sure the enforcement provisions are effective. I appreciate this. I think this will be an achievement that we all should support because we will all benefit from it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of my pleasures in public service is the opportunity to work with some extraordinarily motivated and talented staff. Nowhere in my career has it been more evident than here on Capitol Hill. The joy of working with smart, dedicated, committed young people, often under very difficult, even chaotic, situations, who are here because they make a difference, brightens every day I work here. There are inevitably bittersweet moments when it is time for some trusted members of your team to move on to other careers, graduate school, or move to follow their families. Today in my office we are celebrating one such moment. Michael Harold has been in our office for over 7 years in positions of increasing responsibility until ultimately becoming our Legislative Director. He is preparing to leave for graduate school. Long before he assumed the management of our legislative operations, Michael had made significant impacts far beyond my office. One specific area that he carved out was international water and sanitation. Thanks to Michael's heroic efforts on the Paul Simon Water for the World Act and dealing with funding for related programs, literally millions of lives will be saved. Another key achievement has been Mr. Harold's personal commitment to the Special Immigrant Visa Program to protect those Iraqis and Afghans who put their lives on the line to help American personnel as drivers, interpreters and guides under the most difficult of circumstances. Michael understood and fought for their protection to avoid leaving those who are relying on us to the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Now, one would think that that would be a relatively simple issue. They risked their lives to help us. We made a commitment to protect them. But it became hopelessly confused and complex, with frayed nerves, long hours, and frustration. Now, unlike his work on international water and sanitation, which was massive, long term, and dealt with millions of people he would never meet, this was intensely personal. There were a few thousand people, having been confronted with the most personal and searing examples, often on a one-on-one basis. But whether it was saving millions with water policies or saving thousands with Special Immigrant Visas, Michael was relentless. He managed key efforts on public broadcasting and started our Neuroscience Caucus. I could go on and on. He was resolute, focused, and determined. He built a network of partners at the staff level with legislative leadership, with the committee staff, and other member offices in both the House and the Senate. It was a textbook example of how progress on often overlooked sets of issues have profound consequences for the United States' credibility, our moral standing, and for future generations around the world. Michael and his wife Brynne are pursuing new academic and career opportunities in Boston that will make them more effective in the long run, but also enable the ability to share their attitude and experience and effectiveness, the results of his model, that so much of the public will never see that takes place behind the scenes. While Members are obviously essential to the process, it is absolutely critical that men and women like Michael Harold make it happen. It has been amazingly satisfying for me to watch Michael progress professionally, to marry, start a family, all the while advancing some of the most consequential actions in Congress. Everyone who works with Michael Harold knows what he has done and appreciates all his special efforts to make the world and Capitol Hill a better place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning barely able to talk. But not having much of a voice is common in Portland, Oregon, these days, as fans shouted themselves hoarse after the Portland Timbers' stunning victory over the Columbus Crew on Sunday, winning the Major League Soccer Cup. There is no doubt that my hometown of Portland, Oregon, is Soccer City, USA. Fans continue to prove the point with a huge celebration today. I want to congratulate the Timbers for an amazing season and for being such a huge part, indeed, of Portland, and all of Oregon. This season had it all: injuries and bumps along the way that made Sunday's result seem highly unlikely. But under the leadership and direction of Coach Caleb Porter, the Timbers stayed focused and made course corrections that led them to a national championship, finishing with a flourish. This team has so many heroes that it is impossible, in the time I have, to give them their due recognition. But I want to give special mention to new U.S. citizen Darlington Nagbee; Diego Chara; Rodney Wallace; Jake Gleason; and the old, salty dog, Jack Jewsbury, all of whom have been with the Timbers since our inaugural season. I also want to highlight the Maestro, Diego Valeri; defenders Liam Ridgewell and Nat Borchers, he of the beard; as well as goalkeeper Adam Kwarasay for their heroic efforts this season. Merritt Paulson and his management team deserve recognition for their passion for the support and their love for our city. Of course, you can't mention the Portland Timbers without talking about, as the song goes, the greatest football supporters the world has ever seen, the Timbers Army. Your dedication to team, town, and country is an inspiration and very much in evidence in Columbus this weekend. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by reminding all of America and several places in Canada that, in case you didn't get the hint with Timber Joey and his chain saw, there is no pity in the Rose City.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the passage of H.R. 22, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, is a significant accomplishment. It ends the embarrassing string of 37 short-term extensions. It provides five years of certainty with modest, but important, increased spending levels. There are provisions that deal with safety, innovation, and integrating passenger rail into overall surface transportation, among many other notable items. I am pleased that a number of provisions that I have authored and championed have found their way into the final version of this legislation. One of the unheralded provisions potentially has the most significant, far-reaching consequences--the expansion of work on an alternative user-fee to replace the gas tax. This reflects legislation I have introduced that builds upon the Oregon pilot project on road user charges. There is also a specific title dealing with innovation. The next five years will see unparalleled changes in transportation practices and technology that can have a transformational effect on our way of life, and this bill embraces this. Unfortunately, Congress continues to refuse to address a Highway Trust Fund that is inadequate and losing purchasing power by the month. Refusing to increase the gas tax for 22 years or to have any other source of revenue has complicated passage of a long-term bill. Instead, the collection of budget gimmicks paying for the legislation are, in many cases, questionable. For example, using private bill collectors to hound low-income taxpayers who run into financial difficulty is a money loser, as well as ineffective and unpopular. This is one of many ways the bill is paid for, basically to disguise the use of the Treasury's general fund instead of the traditional user fee model. I am hopeful that we can use the next five years to build upon the positive framework of the legislation and for Congress to accept the overwhelming consensus of the people who build, maintain, and use our surface transportation system. They want to increase user fees to adequately fund transportation, and so should we as well. I will vote for this bill because the positive policy features are compelling and because it gives us an opportunity to use this five-year period of stability to get it right. I will spare no effort to do so, and I hope I'm joined by my colleagues so that the next reauthorization truly enables us to rebuild and renew America, put millions of Americans to work at family wage jobs, and strengthen communities from coast to coast.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to yield 5 more minutes to my friend from Wisconsin because I strongly, strongly agree with the framework that he advanced. I have come to this floor repeatedly with a simple suggestion that we index the gas tax and move forward with paying for our future. It is, I think, an interesting question if we had followed regular order dealing with transportation funding, if we would have had a hearing that would have had the President of the AFL-CIO, had the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, truckers, AAA, legislators from seven red Republican States that have raised the gas tax and the sky didn't fall come forward and talk to Congress about what would make a difference. Because they have all agreed that we shouldn't be borrowing from the future, that we should right-size this, not playing budget games, and be able to have the most effective way to create millions of family wage jobs and show that we can do our job the same way that was led by President Eisenhower and President Reagan. That said, I think this bill does represent an important step forward because there was some regular order followed by the committee. I take my hat off to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, who worked their way through a variety of contentious issues and brought forward a piece of legislation that provides modest, but important, increases in our funding programs. It retains the basic structure. It has some improvements streamlining the process. It protects transit, safety, pedestrian, cycling programs, and a higher speed passenger rail. It speaks to a multiplicity of interests that Americans care deeply about. It has embedded in it areas of innovation to encourage us to use technology to be able to improve the transportation system. I think there is no question that this is a new frontier, that 10 years from now we will not recognize much of what happens in the transportation space. We will be able to coax more value out of our transportation system. We will be able to stretch dollars and unleash a great deal of innovation and activity. This legislation encourages that. Part of the innovation is that, while I think we should index and raise the gas tax to actually adequately fund a robust bill, I think it is important for us to get rid of the gas tax and replace it with something that is sustainable over time. And, again, this legislation has some provisions that will enable States to experiment with pilot projects like we have had in Oregon for the last 10 years for a fee that is based on road use, that would be sustainable, that would be fair, that actually could be adjusted in ways to help rural and small-town America and be able to give greater access to transportation in a more efficient fashion. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will use the 5 years of stability, ending the saga of 35 short-term extensions because we wouldn't face the funding question. I am hopeful that we will use these 5 years to be able to refine some of the improvements that are in it and to be able to directly face the question of whether or not we are going to pay for our transportation future, that we won't use gimmicks, that we will use the tried-and-true user fee and replace the gas tax with something that is better and more sustainable. It is time to start building that foundation now. It is not just more money, but it is transforming how the transportation systems work. I think this bill gives us leverage to move forward on that. Rebuilding and renewing America is a nonpartisan issue. It is an issue that can actually bring us together while we make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. We can put millions of Americans to work at family wage jobs that will improve the quality of life for communities from coast to coast. This bill is a step in that direction. But it is only going to work if we accept our responsibilities to properly fund it, to face the future, and accept responsibility to do our job right. I hope we will.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have long championed the concept that trade done right requires strong environmental protections as well as enforcement of those commitments. Many of our most serious environmental challenges, from climate change to deforestation to protecting the oceans from being strip-mined with industrial fishing practices, can only succeed in the context of enforceable international agreements. Democrats reached an accord with the Bush administration through the May 10 Agreement, which is one tool. The 2008 Lacey Act amendments are another. There are now a host of trade-related tools to fight some of the most egregious environmental challenges. In the Peru Free Trade Agreement, we were able to include an entire Forest Annex that requires Peru to sustainably manage its forest resources and protect their forests, under penalty of law. The impact of those tools, however, is dependent on our willingness to use things like the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Recent events present a chance to put those tools to work to fight against illegal logging in Peru, a country where 60 percent of its land is in the Amazon rainforest, and estimates on the rate of illegal logging in that area are as high as 80 percent. Last week, over 70 shipping containers of what is suspected to be illegally harvested timber from Peru was stopped at the Port of Houston. This action was taken after we received compelling information from OSINFOR, Peru's independent body tasked with oversight of their forests and wildlife resources. Troublingly, this shipment is linked to a company whose logging practices are already suspect, having been one of 10 companies whose export documents were found fraudulent during Operation Amazonas 2014, an operation carried out in coordination with INTERPOL to investigate illegal logging in Peru. While it appears as though the timber is under American control, the same bad actor is once again conveying illegally harvested timber out of Peru's Amazon rainforest and to its borders for export. Thanks to the courageous action of a handful of individuals at OSINFOR--again, Peru's independent agency tasked with overseeing that their timber laws are followed--a shipment of timber likely of illegal origin has been stopped at the border in Peru. As a result, unfortunately, these brave people are being threatened with bodily damage or death. Given the savage history of these criminals, no doubt lives are in jeopardy. One only has to look last fall at how serious these threats were when Edwin Chota, an environmental activist trying to end the practice of illegal logging, was murdered by criminals that lead such illegal activity. Just 3 days ago, OSINFOR's office was firebombed. Thugs are threatening to storm government offices if OSINFOR does not ease up and go quietly into the night. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I urge my colleagues to insist that the administration stand up to these criminals, these murderers, and that we will not turn our back on the courageous individuals, but support them in their efforts. We have the tools to do exactly that, thanks to the Peru Free Trade Agreement, as well as the Lacey Act. The shipment held in Houston should be thoroughly investigated and, if evidence permits, we should bring to bear the full weight of the 2008 Lacey Act amendments by pursuing civil fines, forfeiture of timber and equipment, and criminal penalties, if supported by the evidence. And, frankly, also pushing back on Peru. The shipment held in Peru must also be investigated and the bad actors brought to justice. The Peruvian Government should immediately make clear they stand behind OSINFOR as an independent oversight agency. At a time when we will be considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has promising protections, it is more important than ever that the administration make sure that they are not merely protections on paper, but protections backed by action. It is time to step up with robust enforcement. If we are serious about combating climate change, we must not only hold ourselves accountable for following our carbon-cutting commitments, but other countries as well. Peru, for example, has made protection of the Amazon rainforest the centerpiece of its proposed climate proposal. When unsustainable logging practices contribute to 17 percent of total global carbon emissions annually, it is clear that progress cannot be made on this front and many others if we do not stand up and empower people in Peru and elsewhere who want to do the right thing and fight the illegal trade in timber. The administration has a perfect opportunity to show good faith by acting now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on Paris as it recovers from one tragedy and when 150 world leaders gather to prevent another. They meet to secure a global agreement on climate change. Reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, and wasteful, expensive energy consumption shortchanges today's priorities and threatens our future. Ten years from now, even many of the current climate skeptics will wonder, ``What were we thinking?'' The scientific evidence and the overwhelming consensus it has created is clear. The immediate impacts of record temperatures, erratic, very dangerous weather patterns, ocean acidification, drought, disease, social disruption, and wildfires have predictable impacts that have already cost us dearly, with many more severe problems on the horizon. It is sad that what should be a straightforward, scientific conclusion has become so emotionally charged and politically volatile. It is embarrassing and ironic that in the middle of this historic event on climate change, as the world consensus is strengthening and moving toward action, the best that our Republican Congress can do is voting on two pieces of legislation that would undo much of the progress we have already made. The Republican leader in the Senate argues that the carbon rule of the administration is a vast overreach and yet that the Obama policies won't accomplish anything, all while working to undermine their effectiveness. We will then vote on H.R. 8, a fossil fuel giveaway that will do nothing to combat climate change, but only accelerate the problem. The best solution to the climate threat is not these foolish votes and obstructionism, but an action that has the potential to resolve other controversial issues while addressing our major climate challenges. It is past time for the Federal Government to enact a revenue-neutral fee on carbon emissions. This would not be an excuse to expand government spending and new programs, but instead simplify and solve current problems in a cost-effective manner. Consider for a moment that high on the list of problems, in addition to climate change, is that almost everyone thinks we should fix our broken corporate Tax Code, avoiding the looming Social Security deficit, and streamlining the patchwork of uneven energy subsidy provisions. A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a proven market mechanism to reduce the devastating carbon pollution. We could sweep away expensive and often conflicting clean energy subsidies and replace them with something much more effective. We could use the carbon revenues not for new programs, but to eliminate the looming 25 percent cut in Social Security, acting quickly while a solution is more affordable and less disruptive to the lives of our seniors. At the same time, we could adjust the Social Security tax downward to protect middle and lower income people from impacts of the fee, and we could boost small business, shielding them from part of the cost and lowering the payroll tax they pay, making it cheaper for them to employ people. Finally, a portion of the revenues could be used to buy down the world's highest corporate tax rate that the United States currently has, which distorts business decisions and places us at a competitive disadvantage with other developed countries. Think about it. We could solve the existential climate threat, make the tax system simpler, more fair, and effective, avoid the looming Social Security crisis, and shield individuals and small business from the undue impact from the carbon fee, while making our businesses more competitive. That is about as close as can you get to a nonpartisan, nonideological, grand-slam policy home run. Instead of policies of division and denial, it is time for us to come together to support a revenue-neutral carbon tax to solve multiple problems and meet our obligations to our children and grandchildren.