Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 1737, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Act. There are arguments to be made on both sides of this debate, and I am confident that the people I've worked with over the years in the auto industry are straight shooters. It is clear, however, that there are areas of serious abuse. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has found that there are instances where auto lenders, including some dealers, charge higher interest rates for people of color than they charge white car buyers with similar credit worthiness and financial standings. These higher interest rates come in the form of on-site and undisclosed interest rate markups. Several lawsuits have highlighted these matters. I understand there are alternative arguments. Auto dealers should have the flexibility to give car buyers the best price possible, and interest rate negotiations can be a good way to save consumers money and to streamline the sales process. Further, CFPB's mandate to enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and prevent discrimination in all lending was clear even before the 2013 guidance targeted by this legislation. On balance, however, it is important not to undercut the CFPB as the administration is working hard to protect it. Perennial Republican budget proposals attempt to limit or eliminate funding for the CFPB, and earlier this fall the House Financial Services Committee passed legislation that would replace the CFPB with a politically appointed committee. I'm hopeful that regardless of the outcome of this debate that there is a way to be able to work in a more cooperative basis on this issue. I'm interested in how we both meaningfully address real concerns while simultaneously protecting consumers and the delicate momentum of the newly-created CFPB under continuous attack.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends, unlike the French who had the vision and courage not to scapegoat desperate Syrian refugees fleeing the barbarians that attacked them in Paris, this is a foolish attempt to thwart ISIS terrorists who won't wait 2 years to be vetted. They would do what the 9/11 hijackers did using the existing visa system. Are we going to pause and certify visas for students, tourists, or workers? Why not? One really objectionable portion of this bill for me is I have worked for 10 years to try and help the Iraqis who worked with us in Iraq during that war to be able to escape the tender mercies of al Qaeda and others with long memories who are killing and torturing them. This bill pulls the plug on that and condemns them to be left to the terrorists. I think that is reprehensible. These are people who depended upon us, who relied upon us. We have been working in a bipartisan way for 10 years to help them escape to safety, and this bill would slam that door shut. You ought to be ashamed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Chuck Rosenberg, the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, recently called the notion of smoking medical marijuana a joke. What is a joke is the job Rosenberg is doing as acting DEA administrator. He is an example of an inept, misinformed zealot who has mismanaged America's failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Americans recognize it is time for a change in direction to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Fifty-eight percent now support legalization, continuing an upward trend in public opinion polls and at the ballot box. Over 75 percent of the American public supports medical marijuana, as do a majority of American physicians. Rosenberg claims medical marijuana is a joke, but the proven therapeutic value of cannabis has prompted 23 States, Guam, and the District of Columbia to approve its medical application and an additional 17 States have authorized its more limited use. Rosenberg's claim that more research is necessary is true, but it reeks of hypocrisy because the DEA, under his leadership, has made badly needed cannabis research difficult, and often impossible. If Rosenberg was doing his job, he would have visited with some of the hundreds of thousands who have found medical marijuana has had a profound effect on their lives and that of their families. President Obama is the first sitting President to tell the truth about cannabis. His administration has not acted to shut down the adult or medical marijuana reforms sweeping the country. Sadly, it isn't just his DEA administrator who is undercutting his policy. Earlier this year the Department of Justice took an outrageously flawed position on the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment that passed with strong bipartisan support, which clearly specified that the Federal Government should not interfere with State legal medical marijuana operations. The Department of Justice and the DEA contend that it only prevents action against States, not individuals. This is a ridiculous interpretation of the law and caused a Federal court in California to rule this interpretation ``defies language and logic'' in deciding against them. More recently, the Senate passed the MILCON-VA appropriations bill, which included an amendment offered by my colleague in Oregon, Senator Merkley, mirroring my legislation to allow VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in accordance with State law. Yet, on November 13, the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated they won't allow doctors and patients to participate in State legal marijuana laws, even if this bill becomes law. Sadly, these actions by administration officials are indicative of a throwback ideology rooted in the failed war on drugs, which needs to stop. They do not reflect the overwhelming body of evidence about the effects of medical marijuana, the reforms happening at the State level and in Congress, or the opinion of the American people. They don't reflect the statements by the President himself and the official policy promulgated by former Deputy Attorney General Cole outlining the administration's commitment to stay out of the way of State marijuana laws. There is overwhelming evidence that marijuana offers relief when nothing else has helped, including as a more effective pain management tool than highly addictive narcotics. Opioid overdoses are skyrocketing, and we have an epidemic of heroin abuse and overdose. Sadly, the culture of opposition in the Federal Government continues. On one level, we have this amazing progress at the State and local level. We have made significant progress here in Congress with the introduction of over 20 bills in both Chambers dealing with the Federal treatment of cannabis and hemp, and the successful votes on three amendments in the House and three in Senate committees in this Congress. This culture needs to change. Leadership needs to change. Rosenberg is clearly not the right fit for the DEA in this administration. I would hope that the President directs the heads of all relevant agencies to adjust their policies, clarify regulations that deal with marijuana laws, establish policies that reflect changing State laws, and, most importantly, reflect the President's own position. He has said that he has bigger fish to fry than interfere with State legalization efforts. It is time that the rest of his administration gets on board, and it should start with a new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to support the continued development of clean energy in the United States. The impacts of a changing climate are far-reaching, representing a threat not only to our ecosystems but to our national security as well. To help avoid the worst effects of carbon pollution, consumers must have a dependable supply of energy that is clean and renewable. That much of this energy--and many of the devices used to produce it--is American-made means that our country retains the innovation, export opportunities, and manufacturing jobs that are so important to a twenty-first century economy. The Bridge to a Clean Energy Future Act of 2015 extends critical clean energy incentives to provide market certainty and to strengthen investment in renewable technologies. In doing this, it will support thousands of jobs in clean energy industries, advance U.S. manufacturing, and enable our transition to clean, renewable energy. For example, this legislation extends the Production Tax Credit for wind energy through 2016, offering parity with the duration of the Investment Tax Credit enjoyed by solar energy investments, while also granting the solar industry access to credits at the start of a project's construction, as is currently available for the wind industry. The bill also provides a range of other important incentives, such as expanding the advanced energy project credit, which aids U.S. manufacturers across the clean energy industry. Strengthening the finance environment for the construction and development of renewable energy installations not only will help us to combat climate change and diversify our energy market, it will also strengthen the U.S. economy by creating American jobs, by supporting American manufacturers, and encouraging American innovation. From a strong base at home, American clean energy firms are also able to export technologies around the world, creating new markets for American expertise. This bill is more than fully offset by repealing incentives for fossil energy that are unnecessary and wasteful taxpayer giveaways to some of the most profitable companies in the world doing business in an industry that is a major contributor to climate change.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are all horrified by the barbaric attacks in Paris designed to slaughter innocent people and inspire terror. We stand with the French people and are all committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure we keep Americans safe and intensify our efforts to eradicate these evil, sinister forces that appear almost to be a different species. It is important, however, that we think through clearly where we are, what we have done, and what makes sense going forward to protect Americans and redouble our efforts against this enemy. We must not jump to conclusions and do something before it is carefully planned and analyzed. I was here in the aftermath of the horror of 9/11, the killing of innocent Americans in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and but for the bravery of passengers on United Airlines flight 93, we might well have had our Capitol destroyed. The Federal Government acted after 9/11, but it is not clear our actions were thought out the way they should. We assembled a clumsy behemoth, the Department of Homeland Security, the largest department we have created since 1947. In retrospect, it is not clear that was the wisest course of action. Think about the excessive bureaucracy, charges of waste, fraud, and inefficiency in that department. Look at the clumsy response to Katrina. We passed the PATRIOT Act instead of the bipartisan legislation produced by the Committee on the Judiciary. Look at the vast, sprawling, shadowy intelligence network, so large nobody actually knows precisely how big it is. Remember, the failure of 9/11 to stop the attack was not for lack of intelligence. It was a failure to be able to use the knowledge we have. There is a danger at times of drowning in data. The impulse to lash out led to the disastrous war in Iraq. The aftermath of that effort has done more to empower ISIS. It not only drew people to the movement, but we created a space where they can operate, grow, and lash out at us. Now we hear what can only be described as crazy talk in the Republican Presidential primaries not just about sealing the borders, but having a religious test for refugees fleeing terror. Remember, the 9/11 attackers did not sneak across the borders, but exploited weaknesses in our visa system. Even in Europe, it appears that most of the people involved with the attack did not sneak in, hidden with Syrian refugees. They were actually people already in Europe, radicalized and moving freely about. It is appropriate to be concerned, angry, and determined to protect innocent people, to hunt down and eliminate these horrific threats. I just hope that we learn from our past mistakes about impulse and overreach that may not produce its intended results but, instead, may leave us with more problems and vulnerability. Remember how a college dropout was able to expose vast amounts of sensitive American data. Edward Snowden had been a private contractor who had worked for the government just a few months. Working in a highly charged political environment does not tend to bring out the best in Congress. We need to be careful about getting this right, that we have the support of the American people, and that Congress in a really frustrating time in American politics takes the time and energy to craft effective action. Let's try and get on the same page rather than a rapid response, which history shows is not necessarily the right response. Decidedly, turning our back on Syrian refugees is un-American, unpatriotic, and morally weak. Turning our back on an entire population due to broad-brush characterizations of those who practice a certain faith goes against our core values as a country. I think America is better than that. Seeking compassion for Syrian refugees can be done securely. The facts make that clear. A failure to do so would put us on the wrong side of history. It would be one of those mistakes we make under pressure and would only make us less safe rather than more.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Georgia suggests that this is very complex and difficult and that we have wrapped ourselves around the axle, and we can't do this in the Rules Committee or in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That is hogwash. I wish that the Ways and Means Committee would have accepted the legislation that I have had for the last 5 years that is supported by the Chamber and the truckers and AAA and bicyclists and engineers--but, no, they have not done it. We could have an opportunity with this bill. There are a number of my colleagues who have proposals for finance, but they wouldn't even make in order a study, for heaven's sakes. This year, seven Republican States, including Georgia, have raised the gas tax. They have followed the admonition of President Ronald Reagan in 1982, who called on Congress to come back after Thanksgiving recess and raise the gas tax. The gentleman was not there when I testified, but I submitted a list of 18 organizations that support raising the gas tax, and we are not even allowed an opportunity to debate it on the floor. That is why we can't do as good a job as we want with this transportation bill. And what are we given?--a 6-year shell with 3 years of, sort of, pay- fors--I like this--requiring the Federal Reserve dividend, which is opposed by most of my Republican friends. There are 150 people who signed a letter, saying that it is really stupid to sell the strategic oil reserve at twice what the current price is and--one of my favorites--having bill collectors hound poor people for their taxes. The last two times we tried it, it lost money. This is a fraud. I urge rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree more with my friend from Oklahoma City. First of all, the streetcar is a highly developed mechanism that 30 communities across the country are involved with right now, and they all invest their own money, including Oklahoma City. I find it ironic that somehow there is this notion that people are picking this out of the air as a toy or arts and crafts. That is not the case. Look, I have been working on this for over 30 years, since I initiated a project for Portland's streetcar. I would be happy to introduce the gentleman to businesspeople, to local government. Actually, my friend from Oregon understated it. It is $4.5 billion. It is happening in Seattle, in Tacoma. I was in New York--in Brooklyn-- this Friday, where they are looking at a streetcar. It is an extraordinarily efficient way to concentrate development. It encourages private investment. It extends the pedestrian experience. It is part of the toolkit. I notice the gentleman has left the Chamber. I was going to ask him if he knew that, in his Oklahoma City, there is a TIGER grant that is going to build three blocks of rail line starting in 2016. It was a choice of Oklahoma City. They thought the TIGER grant was so important that they are using Federal money in a project that is supplementing local money. My friend from Oregon is correct, the ranking member, in that we shouldn't take this tool away from communities, large and small, across the country. From Kenosha, Wisconsin, to Los Angeles, people are understanding that the streetcar has a vital role in revitalizing communities, in giving people more choices, in focusing economic development; and it is why the tram--the streetcar--is ubiquitous across the world. It is why we now have 30 cities that are doing it. I would argue, if you look at the billions of dollars we have invested in transportation projects, less than a half a billion dollars that people competed for very aggressively, for these TIGER grants, is money well spent. It is well spent in my community. Some people might warrant Bus Rapid Transit, like my colleague from Oregon has in Eugene. This is a tool that has proven its worth. Communities around the country, from Cincinnati to Dallas, Texas, are doing it because it works. It would be a tragic mistake to approve an amendment that would take this tool away from communities that decide to do it and would like to supplement their local resources with Federal money, like is happening in Oklahoma City next year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I started last week in Dallas, Texas, working with people across the country, but especially from Texas, dealing with transportation needs and their requirements for balanced transportation by pedestrians, streetcar, and especially light rail. Dallas has the most extensive light-rail system in the country. I ended my week in New York City, in Brooklyn, where this vast sprawling economic engine, home to 20 million people in the metropolitan area, was dealing with their transportation needs. Virtually all of these people, whether from Brooklyn, Texas, or around the country, are in agreement with what they need going forward, an important part of which is a renewal and strengthening of the Federal transportation partnership. I was pleased to see that we are moving ahead with discussion of the basic framework produced by our friends on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I commend Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio for producing a bill that is quite strong under these difficult circumstances. It does preserve the basic framework and continue to make improvements not just around the edges. There are potential breakthrough provisions in technology in transportation that could truly be transformational. It is disappointing, however, that the bill flatlines important bike and pedestrian funding, something that is vitally needed in Houston, Indianapolis, Seattle, here in our Nation's Capital, in suburban Maryland, and communities all across the country. The lack of balance in this transportation funding is unfortunate. But I am hoping, through the amendment process and the work between the two Chambers, if it proceeds, that we will be able to correct it. The basic problem is, of course, we continue to tiptoe around the obvious solution to our transportation funding crisis. Our transportation partnership is compromised with our State, local, and private sector partners because we pretend that we can meet 2015 transportation needs with 1993 dollars, the last time we raised the gas tax. The refusal to do what Ronald Reagan did in 1982 and the refusal to do what six red Republican States have already done this year-- Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, Georgia--raising the gas tax, creates unnecessary difficulties. The majority of States have raised their revenues over the last 4 years for transportation, and a review of the politicians involved with making these decisions found that those who voted for the revenue increases were actually reelected at a higher percentage than those who voted ``no.'' This bill is a well-intended statement with good structure and innovation; but until we have meaningful, long-term, predictable funding, it is only a well-intended statement. We continue the uncertainty that bedevils people at the State and local levels; and the big projects--multistate, multimodal, multiyear projects--need certainty. The minor cost increase of a few cents per day for families would be offset by the dramatic plunge in gasoline prices and offset even more through the cost to families for damage to their vehicles of over $500 a year now because of poor road conditions and almost $1,000 a year lost due to congestion. These are real costs that we are inflicting on American families every day unnecessarily. Raising the gas tax and providing stable, meaningful funding for transportation will create millions of family-wage jobs all across the country while we get America unstuck and strengthen communities large and small. Mr. Speaker, one of the positive elements in this bill that we are discussing is Vision Zero, which asks us to plan for a world where there are no traffic fatalities, a goal that is so important to strive for as we continue to kill 32,000 people a year on our highways and countless more who are injured. Setting our goal high with Vision Zero is the sort of bold step we need, but we should not have a Vision Zero for new revenue. That is not bold. That is not courageous. That doesn't get the job done. I look forward to this debate over the next couple of days. I look forward to having Members of Congress consider their alternatives. What are they going to do to make sure we can rebuild and renew this great country? This used to be an area of tremendous bipartisan cooperation, leadership, and accomplishment for Congress. I hope it can be so again as we turn to transportation this week. The American public would welcome such a development, and certainly they deserve it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I appreciate the work that has been done in this underlying legislation to put more national priority dealing with nonmotorized safety. This new program gives States funding for Vision-Zero-type activities that are on the forefront of what is happening in communities around the country that are not accepting the carnage on the highways for pedestrians and cyclists being able to use these tools, to be able to re-engineer and to enforce and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. Being struck by a motor vehicle is the leading cause of injury- related death for children under 14, and being struck by a motor vehicle is the second-leading cause of injury-related death for senior citizens. This is our young and our old. In low-income neighborhoods, there is a much higher pedestrian fatality rate than in higher income areas. Fatalities on our roadways have declined overall, but the number of pedestrians killed annually rose 16 percent over the course of the last 5 years. We spend billions of dollars on surface transportation every year, not as much as we should, but a significant amount of money. Yet, we are spending less than a billion on critical bike and pedestrian Federal projects. That is why I strongly support the new nonmotorized public safety program. However, I have one modest concern. Only States where 15 percent or more of the traffic fatalities are nonmotorized are eligible for this funding. My reckoning is that only 20 States and the District of Columbia would qualify. This seems backwards to me. When we have this carnage occurring in communities large and small across the country, this provision would actually reward States with Federal money that are more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians and doesn't provide incentives for those States who have lowered the number of bike and pedestrian incidents and are working to move forward. I have introduced this legislation with my colleague, Congressman Buchanan of Florida, who is the co-chair of the Bike Caucus, to make this funding available to virtually every State by lowering the eligibility threshold to 2 percent of the fatalities and double the funding for a nonmotorized safety program. Madam Chair, this is serious business. I have encountered people from around the country who are part of this revolution in terms of enhancing bike and pedestrian facilities. This Congress has been in the forefront of moving it forward. I think extending the eligibility of this program would be in keeping with this record of accomplishment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. In the meantime, I appreciate what has been done, the manner in which it has been approached, and the effort to try and bring people together. Historically, infrastructure was something that was bipartisan in nature, that made people feel good about the process; and it is, of course, the fastest way to put millions of Americans to work at family- wage jobs while they improve communities from coast to coast. I look forward to working with the committee as it works its way through the process to make it the best that we can for the multiple objectives that we all share.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate what the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is doing. I feel a bit empty in no longer being on the committee. That is why I try and show up as often as I can when you have things on the floor. There is a soft spot in my heart for the committee, and it is nice to see a Shuster again chairing the committee. I appreciate your moving forward to try and call the question. Yours has been a difficult task because the committee on which I sit, the Ways and Means Committee, has yet to address, in a comprehensive way, the long-term funding. Your job is made much more difficult because you are forced to deal with paying for 2015 infrastructure through 2021 with 1993 dollars, and it doesn't much work. In a few minutes, I will be offering to the Rules Committee legislation that I have introduced that is supported by the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, truckers, AAA, bicyclists, engineers, local government--the widest array of alliances supporting a major piece of legislation here on Capitol Hill. I am not extremely confident that it will be made in order, but I think it is something that should. Unless and until we deal with adjusting the user fee, we are going to continue dealing with cats and dogs, short-term fixes, having uncertainty, and destroying the principle of user pays, which has been undergirding transportation finance in this country since Oregon gave you the first gas tax dedicated to transportation in 1919. I must say that I appreciate the committee looking at transportation for the future. At a time when the number one area of employment for American men is as drivers, we are about to see dramatic changes in technology, in utilization that is going to change the landscape. I appreciate the committee exploring areas of technological innovation. These are areas in which we must accelerate our work lest we be overcome by circumstances. It is a tremendous opportunity for us to get more value out of the transportation system with more safety, to get more efficient, and to be able to open up a whole array of economic opportunities. If we don't get ahead of it, it is going to be very disruptive. I must say I am a little dismayed that the bill proposes flat funding for something near and dear, I think, to the hearts of a number of us in dealing with pedestrian and cycling activities. We can do better than that, and I hope, through the amendment process and the give-and- take between the House and the Senate, particularly if we are able to give you the funding you need, we can remedy that.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for his raising this issue. Madam Chairman, it is important that we have a balanced transportation system, and there are already problems in terms of being able to promote nonmotorized transportation in terms of bike and pedestrian. Being able to maintain the ability for the Federal funding, I think, is important. I don't think we should relegate this to being a second-class type of transportation. I was in Brooklyn on Friday night, and people were engaged in their initiatives with cycling. I started the week in Dallas. Texas cities are incorporating these mechanisms into their basic approach to transportation. This is not the end of the world, but I think it is ill-advised, and it is the wrong signal for us to be sending. There are several dozen women from the bicycle industry here--executives from companies--who are involved with hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity. This is something that does not deserve to be downgraded. This is not going to upset the apple cart by any stretch of the imagination. I appreciate my colleague for putting the spotlight on this. We are watching cycling explode from Washington, D.C., to Seattle, to Rochester, New York, to Indianapolis, Indiana. This is a small but important step backwards.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I appreciate what the committee has done putting this new program in. I think it is important. I look forward to its success. Since it is a competitive grant program, allowing most States to be eligible doesn't take that away. The other areas that the gentleman is talking about have much more generous funding than programs that hit our youth and our senior citizens in term of bike and pedestrian. I think, by any rational reallocation, we would be putting more in. This is a drop in the bucket, $28 million overall. It would be money well spent and would allow the program to be able to evaluate which programs are the best, particularly some that have successfully lowered their accident rate a little bit below the 15 percent threshold. Maybe they have got something going. Maybe they have got something that we could use for national applications. I respectfully request that the amendment be approved. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against H.R. 1090, which would gravely slow development of new rules designed to better protect individual investors. While I have been sympathetic to some industry concerns--in particular expressing an interest in further refinements with regard to exemptions relating to Best Interest Contracts, education, and lifetime income options--I have also made clear my strong support for rules barring the provision of advice subject to real or potential conflicts of interest. The Department of Labor has demonstrated an attempt to put forth a balanced rule that accommodates concerns from industry with protections for individual investors. The bill I will vote against, however, would bury this effort behind years of tertiary regulatory and congressional action. It is clear that Americans badly need to save more for their retirement. As savings policies have evolved to place the decision- making burden on the individual, our rules must be updated to ensure that information is adequately shared and presented. Under the present system, estimates of value lost to these investors as a result of conflicted advice are unconscionably high. While the proposed federal rule is not perfect, it marks an important step forward and I look forward to working with the administration to continue to improve their effort.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of wrapping up a budget agreement that is welcome since it protects against default on the national debt and prevents draconian cuts for disability payments and unfairness in Medicare premiums for our senior citizens; but it continues a downward spiral in government spending for essential items that would improve America's infrastructure, education, medical research, and much more. Yet, at the same time, we are continuing on autopilot with some of the largest expenditures for generations to come. We had an announcement yesterday that we will be replacing the next generation of stealth bombers for our nuclear triad--up to 100 of them--at an estimated cost of over $550 million each, and that is just the estimated shelf price, the opening bid, plus another $20 billion in development costs. Our history of developing weapons of this magnitude is that from the opening bid, the price is likely to spiral much higher in the future. The same contractor, Northrop Grumman, which won this bid, could only build 21 B-2s out of a planned 132 as the costs spiraled to over $1 billion a plane. This comes at a time when we are committed to spending over $1 trillion in the coming decades in upgrading our nuclear fleet. Think about it: 12 new ballistic missile submarines, up to 100 new long- range, nuclear-capable bombers, 642 new land-based ballistic missiles, 1,000 new nuclear-capable, long-range standoff cruise missiles. And why are we doing this in the first place? Think for a moment. These weapons that we have already are far in excess of anything America will ever need--a destructive capacity to obliterate any nation multiple times over--yet, we are moving ahead without ever discussing this spending here on the House floor as to whether or not it is what we need. Think about the security threats of today in terms of an inability to withstand the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities, the threats from ISIS, different challenges of encroachment from Russia and China--not nuclear attack, but moving ahead in building artificial islands, invading neighboring countries. These are threats now--the Taliban, international terrorism--and we are committed to spending vast sums on weapons that we are never likely to use and are useless against the real threats we face. We don't need 454 land-based nuclear missiles now. These end up threatening us. Look at the recently released information about the stand-down around Russian paranoia in 1983 regarding NATO exercises. We didn't realize how panicked they were or the steps that they took. That is the real threat from nuclear weapons, accident or miscalculation. Consider the opportunity costs of vast sums of money that we are tying up that could be used for other purposes, including strengthening our military for today's threats or helping our veterans or our communities on what is bearing down upon them or equipping our citizens to function in this century. We just had a fascinating lesson when the Export-Import Bank was freed from the iron grasp of the committee and was allowed to actually be debated on the floor of the House. It had been bottled up for years. It had never had that sort of attention. We had more time and energy spent on the Ex-Im Bank over the last 50 hours than, probably, the last 50 years--certainly, in the last 50 months. What would happen if Congress actually addressed and debated the wisdom of our current nuclear policies and the vast sums of money that are being spent on autopilot that will be chewing a hole in the budget to the detriment of the Department of Defense and everything else? There is a lesson to be learned, and I hope someday Congress will learn it, because there is a path for a stronger, safer America, for more meaningful, targeted military spending, and for a balanced, thoughtful budget prioritization. If Congress does its job in the open, collectively, the decision becomes easier and the results become better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his hard work over the years on the budget. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to support this agreement. It allows us to limp along. There is no shutdown for now. We avoid the damage of default. There is a slight relaxation in sequestration. There is equity for seniors and the disabled. There was a time when many of these provisions would not necessarily be a cause for celebration, but it is today. This is a signal accomplishment for stability. I take my hat off to Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, the Senate leadership, and the President and his team for delivering an agreement that came together for Congress at relatively warp speed, working behind the scenes for days. It wins the House some breathing space, not lurching from crisis to crisis, and I hope that we take advantage of this achievement. This was an important week here on Capitol Hill: We have made a transition on the Republican side with a new Speaker, a friend that I respect and admire, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. I look forward to working with him. It was important that the House was able to work its will on the Ex- Im Bank. We found a piece of legislation supported not just overwhelmingly by the House, but by a majority of Republicans, bottled up in committee by a minority, and it broke loose. I think that is important. I hope this breathing room allows us to do one other thing, and that is to prioritize our budget requirements. We are going to spend over $1 trillion in the years ahead on nuclear weapons that we cannot afford to use and can't afford to buy. We can do better for the American people, and I hope this agreement allows us to do so.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in over a dozen years, an unusual legislative procedure--a discharge petition--has been successfully mounted in the House. This is an extraordinary effort to allow the House to work its will--a mechanism that was part of a package of reform, dating back over a century, to deal with the iron rule of Speaker Joe Cannon. The subject of the petition, the Ex-Im Bank, was almost as obscure as the procedure that brought it to the House. This is an agency that for over 70 years has provided financing for transactions similar to which all of our competitor nations provide their exporting companies. In this case, American companies will have the credit tools that will enable them to cost-effectively engage in international transactions that other private institutions won't finance because of political or commercial risks. Even if providing this service meant a modest exposure to the taxpayer, which might occasionally cost money, it was probably worth it to have the businesses support good-paying American jobs and to be able to compete with foreign companies. Yes, it would be worth it. It is not just a low-risk proposition. The Ex-Im Bank is a service that has made billions of dollars for the United States Treasury. It turns a profit--about $2 million in the last 2 fiscal years. This is interesting--a service that all of our competitor nations provide their companies. It hasn't cost the taxpayers any money. In fact, it makes money for the Treasury. Why was it allowed to expire? This is another example of where a minority of the House, for ideological reasons, decided they were going to take over the process. In this case, they were going to kill the Ex-Im Bank. They did so over the objections of the administration, of the business community, of many Members of Congress, of people in organized labor. It was hard to maintain decorum during last night's debate when the chair of the committee complained that, somehow, by approving the discharge petition and the procedural motions that followed, we were stifling the will of the House. I smiled as people lamented that they would not be able to offer amendments. Members came to the floor, saying they had amendments they wished they could offer and now they were being shut out. How ironic. His committee had no intention of allowing the House to participate in the give-and-take of legislation he was lamenting was slipping away. His committee didn't allow this proposal to come to the floor. The committee did not amend and refine the Ex-Im Bank. The committee killed it by having the authorization expire without giving the whole House a chance to be part of that decision. Now the people who were caught on the wrong side of the majority of the House, with a losing argument and a minority position, were suddenly concerned that the House was being shut out. They had been shutting out the House for the last 2 years. They had denied efforts at reform. Only when their hand was forced did they somehow resort to the most specious of arguments. This is like, as they say, the person who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan. There is no reform because they didn't want reform. They were the ones who shut the House out. Now, because of the courageous action by a bipartisan group, led by our Republican colleagues--eloquently and bravely--the House will no longer be shut out. American business will be stronger; and the House has demonstrated that there sometimes will be opportunities for a bipartisan majority to have its interests represented. We can only hope that this sets a precedent for how we solve other problems, from raising the debt ceiling, to dealing with budgets, to rebuilding and renewing America. Involve the entire House--solutions are possible--and America will be better served.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 1937, a bill that weakens environmental safeguards while bolstering the mining industry's special privileges on federal lands. The language in the bill is written in such a way to cover virtually all hardrock mining on federal lands. Instead of using a scientific definition of a critical mineral, a mineral for which there is no substitute, H.R. 1937 considers gravel and sand to be critical minerals, leading to fast-tracked permits for practically any hardrock mines, even when the materials are plentiful. In addition, the bill classifies hardrock mines as infrastructure projects in order to allow hardrock mines to access a streamlined permit process intended for actual infrastructure projects such as surface transportation and pipelines, which have far less of an environmental impact. The bill directs the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to simplify the process for obtaining permits to extract minerals from federal lands, including eliminating adequate reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is widely known that the NEPA review process, through the formulation of alternative proposals and the consideration of public input, leads to improved federal decision-making and better projects. In the end, NEPA saves time, money and reduces negative impacts. Furthermore, NEPA is the primary balancing mechanism against the mining industry's privileged access to billions of dollars worth of minerals on federal lands. The mining industry already enjoys access to hardrock minerals on public lands without paying taxpayers anything. Finally, the bill limits the ability of aggrieved communities to use the court system to hold the government accountable when contamination from hardrock mining threatens their groundwater or drinking water. H.R. 1937 exempts legal cases brought against hardrock mines from the Equal Access to Justice Act, which means that winning plaintiffs cannot collect attorney fees from the government, ultimately ensuring that poor communities will never challenge these decisions in court. I support efforts to strengthen our mining regulations. H.R. 1937, however, is a step in the wrong direction. We should be looking to reform the antiquated General Mining Law of 1872. Nearly a century and a half later, a law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant remains the law of the land and carries with it a toxic legacy. The GAO estimates that there may be more than 160,000 abandoned hardrock mines and that 20% of these sites (roughly 33,000) have degraded the environment by contaminating surface water and groundwater or leaving arsenic- contaminated tailings piles. In its place, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, H.R. 963, is a meaningful attempt at comprehensive reform and yet it remains stuck in committee. Unlike the bill being considered on the floor today, H.R. 963 would protect communities and their surroundings by balancing mining with other uses of public land. This legislation would put in place environmental controls to protect water, create jobs and protect natural areas by funding the clean-up of abandoned mines, and compensate taxpayers for the extraction of natural resources.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3762, the Restoring American's Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act. This legislation is not a serious effort at deficit reduction. Rather it is an assault on the American public by gutting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and badly undercutting women's health services. The budget reconciliation process is supposed to reduce funding shortfalls, but instead this bill would increase America's long-term deficits. Not only would it take health care away from 16 million Americans, but it would also make our families less safe by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that, for example, has helped thousands of adults and teenagers quit smoking, deaths from which cost taxpayers over $100 billion each year. This latest repeal effort comes after millions of Americans are newly enrolled in health insurance, many using financial assistance or enrolling in expanded Medicaid programs. In Oregon, over 100,000 individuals have enrolled using the health exchange marketplace and 75 percent of those Oregonians receive financial assistance. Over 1 million Oregonians have coverage through the expanded Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This legislation takes away this coverage or dramatically increases premiums--undermining important patients' rights and benefits along the way. What's worse than the substance of this bill is the fact that this charade used up precious time that ought to have been used to address real problems. In just a few days, America's Highway Trust Fund will expire. If Congress rolled up its sleeves and found a solution to pay for America's crumbling infrastructure, we could put hundreds of thousands of people to work, reduce the deficit, improve the economy, and strengthen the quality of life in communities across America. In less than two weeks unless Congress acts, America will default on our debt. When we came within one day of default in 2011, Republicans caused serious damage to the U.S. economy. The stock markets were hit hard, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging 2,000 points in July and August of 2011. Standard & Poor's, the ratings agency, downgraded the U.S. credit rating. As a result, taxpayers spent $1.3 billion more in interest payments because of the downgrade. In the four years since, due to the GOP's continued brinksmanship, the S&P has not reversed that downgrade. It's time to act responsibly and deal with difficult issues by offering real and thoughtful solutions. Let's be clear--this vote, the 61st vote to repeal the ACA, is anything but responsible or thoughtful, and it is reckless in the extreme to hold the entire U.S. economy hostage to fringe economic demands. The Republican party needs to sideline reckless actors and the ideas they present, not bring them to the floor.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will consider a surface transportation reauthorization. Unfortunately, calling it a ``reauthorization'' doesn't make it so. This legislation calls for a 6-year period of reauthorization and hopes to be funded for 3 years, but it doesn't actually provide a single dime of revenue from the highway trust fund. It is simply an empty shell. It really doesn't have to be this hard. There is a single solution that is supported by everyone outside of Capitol Hill, one that has been employed by six red Republican States already this year and championed by Ronald Reagan when he was President: raise the gas tax. Our problems are that we are trying to fund 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars--the last time we raised the Federal gas tax. I have a bill that will accomplish this fact. H.R. 680 provides that assurance and certainty by phasing in a gas tax increase over 3 years. It will permit us to fully fund a 6-year reauthorization for the first time since 1998 without resorting to gimmicks. It is cosponsored by over three dozen House Members, but, more importantly, it enjoys the broadest base of support for any major piece of legislation before Congress. Is there any other bill of any significance that is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO, countless business and trade associations, as well as individual unions, the American Trucking Association, representing that industry, and auto users, represented by AAA? The answer is ``no.'' The coalition includes bicyclists, engineers, local government, transit agencies--virtually anyone who builds, maintains, or depends upon our transportation system. For all the rhetoric about ``strengthening the economy,'' this will be the one proven way of putting several million people to work at family-wage jobs while it reduces the deficit and strengthens our communities from coast to coast. Every State, every metropolitan area, every rural region of America would benefit both by the transportation improvements as well as the economic impact this work will create. This has been recognized by independent analysts, editorials in major newspapers, and in small newspapers all across the country. There really is no controversy. Indeed, in the over two dozen States that have raised transportation revenue since 2012, the legislators who voted for more transportation revenue got reelected by a higher percentage than the legislators who voted against it. It is broadly supported, not politically controversial, and is desperately needed. I am glad my colleagues were able to reach a compromise on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and put forward some interesting ideas. It gives a hint of what could happen if we had a real funding source, which we don't; and the bill being marked up raises more questions, therefore, than it answers. Even if the House were to embrace it unanimously, we would still be where we were 3 months ago, 6 months ago, and many times before that. We are facing another short-term extension--this will be the 35th-- and are providing zero assurance or long-term certainty to the many who rely on our transportation system. No country became great building its infrastructure 8 months at a time. We can have markups and pass a reauthorization shell on the floor of the House; but until we embrace H.R. 680 and raise the gas tax, finding revenue that is sustainable, dedicated, and big enough to do the job, we are still going to be spinning our wheels; and America will be stuck.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 702--to adapt to changing crude oil markets--on Friday, October 9th. This legislation will broadly remove almost all restrictions on crude oil exports from the United States. It was ill-advised and represented a huge missed opportunity to address our energy needs comprehensively. Right now, we export limited amounts of crude oil from the United States, and this policy is working. There may come a time when it would be strategic to make an adjustment on our export strategy, but right now we are awash in oil in this country, gasoline prices are low and the President already has the latitude to help some of our strategic partners with limited U.S. exports if he deems it in the national interest. Those in favor of exporting more crude tout benefits of job creation and lower gas prices. This is dramatically overstated. If some jobs are created in the oil fields, other jobs will be lost in refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates that exporting more crude now would either have no impact on the cost of gasoline or only slightly reduce the price of gasoline. The real benefactors of this policy change would be large oil companies. If Congress is going to provide yet another benefit to oil companies who don't need it, at the very least it should be part of a larger energy package that would actually help the American people and further our domestic energy security needs. We need to extend tax credits that support the wind and solar electricity sectors, industries that actually create far more jobs than would come from exporting more crude oil. We need to end some of the more egregious subsidies for the oil and gas sector, subsidies that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars every year. We need to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund which supports important conservation projects in every community in America. Instead of passing an isolated giveaway to big oil, we should take any energy legislation that comes to the floor as opportunity to look at energy comprehensively, with the ultimate goal of transitioning away from fossil fuels while keeping energy affordable and reliable for the American people. If Republicans were actually serious about pursuing a bipartisan agenda, they would not have included provisions that broadly prevent the federal government from imposing any restriction on the export of crude oil under other authorities. They would not have included non- germane, vote-buying provisions such as the last-minute addition of funding for the Maritime Security Program (MSP). That is why I voted for an amendment offered by my colleague, Representative Amash, to keep MSP at its currently authorized level, instead of the $500 million increase included in this legislation. There's no doubt that the sustainability of the MSP program is in question without increased funding. That is sadly the case for many federally-supported programs, all directly impacted by a Congress unwilling to provide additional revenue or compromise on an effort to finally eliminate the reckless sequestration caps that I've voted against since day one. Even if MSP were to receive the relief they need ahead of many others hurt by budgetary brinksmanship, the funding level ought to be carefully scrutinized. The highly debated, amended, and conferenced fiscal year 2016 Defense Authorization did exactly that, and concluded that the annual subsidy for MSP participants should increase from $3.1 million per vessel to $3.5 million per vessel--a 12.9 percent increase, not the 40 percent increase included in H.R. 702. Overall, H.R. 702 was bad policy and represented a huge missed opportunity to address our real energy needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, advocates from the new emerging marijuana industry in Oregon are descending on Capitol Hill at a very critical time for this fledgling industry. They have a report about the implementation of Oregon's Ballot Measure 91--overwhelmingly approved by voters last year--to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana at the State level. Possession became legal July 1. Retail sales were authorized in existing dispensaries on the 1st of October to significant interest around the State. The first week saw an estimated $11 million in sales. They are working hard to implement the spirit and the letter of the measure, working closely with the Oregon legislature to refine it, learning from the experience of States like Washington and Colorado that have already legalized adult use. Theirs is a positive story of economic opportunity, product development, tax revenues, more freedom for individuals, and eliminating the racial disparities in the enforcement of a failed policy of prohibition that comes down heavily against young men of color, especially African Americans. At the same time, there was a scathing report this week from Brookings Institution researchers John Hudak and Grace Wallack that called out the roadblocks that are being put in place by law enforcement and Federal policies that stifle medical marijuana research, that interfere with the science and the doctor-patient relationship in ways that are completely unwarranted, counterproductive, and destructive. They come at a time when the Federal Government has told the Drug Enforcement Agency to stop harassing medical providers after Congress clearly passed legislation to protect the industry and, more importantly, a patient's right to medicine. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment passed with strong bipartisan support, clearly specifying that the Federal Government should not interfere with State-legal medical marijuana operations. The Department of Justice, unfortunately, took an outrageously flawed position, which infuriated those of us who authored these provisions and have worked to pass them over the last 2 years. The DEA ignored the law, and the Department of Justice defended them in this unfortunate action. It is the latest example of how far out of touch the Federal Government agencies are with the reality on the ground, with the will of the majority of the American people, who think that marijuana should be legal, and with the policies of the President himself. President Obama has declared marijuana no more harmful than other perfectly legal substances, like tobacco, which is, in fact, true, and that he had bigger fish to fry than fight against State legalization. Unfortunately, some parts of his Federal Government are still frying those fish. The good news is that the tide has turned. As I mentioned, the majority of the American people now think marijuana should be legal, as 23 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam now have medical marijuana and 17 more have authorized a limited version of medical marijuana. We have 4 States and the District of Columbia that permit outright adult use, with more States considering this over the course of the next year. All the Federal Government has to do, as Secretary Clinton recently said in Colorado, is just stay out of the way. Stop interfering. Let legal marijuana businesses have bank accounts. Don't force them to be all cash. Let them deduct their business expenses from their taxes instead of penalizing them with grotesquely punitive levels of tax. Let the States continue in their efforts at reform. Let them treat it just like we do alcohol. The day is fast coming when the Federal policy will be to robustly research and, ultimately, deschedule--or remove--marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, no longer pretending that it is or should be a Schedule I controlled substance, and, instead, tax and regulate it at the Federal level. In the meantime, the States will continue marching forward; the public will continue to request that we, at the Federal level, stop interfering with medical marijuana; and Congress will continue our efforts with increasingly large, bipartisan majorities to make this policy work to replace the failed attempt at marijuana prohibition.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I am listening to my friend from Louisiana rewrite history. It is not the President who is threatening to default on the national debt. It is the Republican Congress that is refusing to do what was granted to every President in the past--Republican or Democrat--which is to deal with raising the debt ceiling, which is, after all, money we have already spent, money that they approved. They have been in charge for the last 5 years. The notion that we can somehow distinguish the semantics of this proposal, distinguishing between sovereign debt and the rest of the 80 million transactions that the Treasury makes every day, is lunacy. If you disagree with our protections to seniors, veterans, the military, Medicare, Medicaid, the FBI, food safety, cut them, but you don't. You nibble away at them. You have never offered a balanced budget when you have been in charge. We had balanced budgets when President Clinton was President. Thank you very much. Unless you assure everyone, nobody is protected. As for the notion somehow that the President walked away from the negotiations with Simpson-Bowles, where was Paul Ryan? I like Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan refused to embrace Simpson-Bowles' proposals. They cannot pass their vision. They want to blame the President and the American people. I would respectfully suggest that we ought to reject this fig leaf and get down to business: raise the debt ceiling as we have done repeatedly in the past for Presidents, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, get past the rhetoric, and then deal with structural issues going forward. Let's rebuild and renew America. Let's raise the gas tax so we can deal with our crumbling infrastructure, something that Ronald Reagan did in 1982, when we faced a deficit in the highway trust fund then.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. There are simple, commonsense solutions, by the way, that are supported by the U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO, truckers and AAA, business, government, to be able to get the country moving again, to repair crumbling infrastructure, and not add to the deficit. One simple, little step--something we could do--not deal with goofy legislation like is offered today.