Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 10, which would continue a flawed program that pursues a partisan ideology at the expense of a child's quality education. This bill would reauthorize Washington, D.C.'s private school voucher program, the only program in the country using federal money to send children to private and religious schools. The SOAR voucher program was a five year pilot set to expire in 2008. Despite four studies by the Department of Education and two General Accountability Office (GAO) reports concluding that the program wasn't working, Republicans in Congress are doubling down by allowing taxpayer dollars to prop up unaccredited, and even unsafe, schools. The last thing we need, as our students fall further behind their international peers, are voucher schools operating in relative isolation, free of oversight for curriculum, quality or management. SOAR is the only program of its kind for a reason--there's no way our states would tolerate such nonsense. Sadly, because D.C. has not been freed from the partisan grips of Congress, it has become commonplace to see House Republicans impose their politics on D.C., despite widespread citizen and local government objection, from women's health care to marijuana reform to street design. There's justification for a program that funnels millions of dollars into a program shown to be ineffective and strongly opposed by the people that should matter--the parents, the educators, and taxpayers who support the system. Worse, the SOAR Act strips students of constitutional protections of civil rights: federal funds can flow to schools that do not meet the federal standards to prevent discrimination against disabled persons, persons of color, persons of a religious group, women, or any other protected class. The SOAR Act is a sad step backward for education policy, civil rights, and good governance, and I strongly oppose it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend from Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is occasionally a little bit of controversy around the House, a modest amount of disagreement, and, of course, that is just in the Republican conference. There are lots of things that get the spotlight. But I appreciate the leadership of my friend with our Health Subcommittee on Ways and Means for there are things below the radar screen where we have been working in a thoughtful and bipartisan way to try and see if we can thread the needle on a number of these things that don't have to cost a lot of money, and they enable us to be able to refine healthcare opportunities. One of the biggest accomplishments of the session was getting the SGR monkey off our back to deal with the sustainable growth rate in a bipartisan fashion, and there have been, I want to say, about 12 bills that have moved out of our Health Subcommittee that deal with initiatives going forward. What my friend from Texas said about the PACE Act is absolutely true. This is an opportunity for us to take a proven set of techniques to help seniors who want to stay at home, who do not want to be in nursing facilities, being able to give them the flexible needs in terms of services, and it works. I represent a program in Portland, Oregon, Providence ElderPlace. It serves over 1,000 Oregonians. It has got a solid track record. It has costs that are lower than average if they were Medicaid beneficiaries. In some States, these savings can be nearly 30 percent. There are opportunities here to be able to give better ongoing service. The hospital readmission rate, for example, the program I mentioned in Oregon, is far under the national average of 15.2 percent. It is about half that rate. This simply extends this opportunity to a broader range of beneficiaries, people who have complex health conditions, but who are younger, for instance. They are no less deserving of this opportunity. I am absolutely convinced that the results will be every bit as strong. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this bill move forward, and I appreciate the advocacy of my friend, Mr. Smith from New Jersey. We seem to find a variety of things to work on together in this Congress, and there is nothing that I think is more important and is going to have more long-term impact for people who are quite vulnerable. It is going to save the Federal Government money while it provides better outcomes for patients and for their families. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time urging strong support from my colleagues.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close just by saying, again, I express my appreciation to the chairman and to Mr. Smith for moving this forward. We find that the evaluations of the PACE program have proven that participants experience better health outcomes, fewer unmet needs, less pain, less likelihood of depression, and fewer hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. There are people out there now, if we make this change, that are ready to extend this higher quality of care for very deserving, needy, and vulnerable people who are younger than the threshold 55 years of age. Mr. Speaker, I urge we vote tonight, enact it into law, and let these people get to work serving these people in a new and profoundly improved way. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, this is ill-advised legislation. My friends on the other side of the aisle claim 800,000 jobs, a million jobs. They don't have any real defined ability to provide such an estimate. Actually, this is a number that is made up because, as some of the speakers have acknowledged, there will be offsetting job losses as a result of what is going to happen, for example, in the refining industry or what is going to happen in terms of some of the transport. But that is beside the point. We actually have a policy that is working. There will come a time, perhaps, when it makes sense in a strategic matter to make an adjustment. Right now, the President has the latitude to be able to help some of our strategic partners. He has that flexibility. We are awash in oil in this country, and to expect that somehow exporting more of it is going to make a dramatic impact at the pump here is a pipe dream. It won't. It might make a modest impact. What we could do is provide a benefit to the large oil companies as part of a larger package that would help everybody. We have expiring tax provisions, for instance, dealing with the production tax credit, dealing with wind and solar that actually create far more jobs than will be found in the refining and in the oil production. And these are good, family-wage jobs all across the country Let's put together a package that speaks to alternative energy continuity, that speaks to conservation, that speaks to a long-term strategy that is a win-win. I am absolutely confident that Mr. Pallone and Mr. Barton could sit down and deal with a package that would have far more benefit for America. If you are going to hand out another goodie to the oil companies, let's have a more comprehensive approach that meets our comprehensive energy needs. This bill doesn't do it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we take to the floor to deal with the daily reminders of turmoil around the world: the unrest in the Middle East, especially in Syria and ISIS; the sad reality of an unending string of events regarding gun violence. There is a certain amount of unrest here in the House, as our Republican colleagues right now are trying to chart a path forward to reconcile differences of opinion within their own ranks that have some spillover effects for us. But in the background, there is a critical issue that we should be focused on that may not command the headlines; but it is, nonetheless, a critically important item. We are faced with arcane formulas that govern dealing with Medicare-- the rates that recipients pay for their services--that have a perverse impact on some of the lowest income seniors. Through no fault of their own, 7.7 million senior citizens are going to be treated very unfairly. These are the 30 percent of Medicare recipients who are going to pay the burden for all Medicare recipients for the cost increases. We have a provision in place that holds harmless people who get no increase in their Social Security payments, and they are immune from premium increases. But that is not so for the other 30 percent. These are the people who are facing a 52 percent increase in that part B premium, over $54 a month. Now, remember, nobody gets an increase in their Social Security, and there is going to be about a $76 increase per month in the deductible. A typical Medicare beneficiary pays almost $5,000 per year for premiums, cost sharing, and other services that aren't covered by insurance. For many, that is not an unreasonable contribution for their health care, but not for everyone. More than half the beneficiaries have incomes of $24,150. These 30 percent, the 7.7 million who will pick up the slack for everyone else, are going to be facing a significant impact, given their low incomes. It doesn't actually have to be this way. There are proposals that are available for Congress to deal with. Representative Dina Titus, Representative Jan Schakowsky, and Senator Ron Wyden all have proposals that would eliminate or minimize the impact on these vulnerable senior citizens. And, bear in mind, it will also impact the States $2.3 billion in terms of Medicaid programs, which inevitably will translate into service reductions, again, for some of our most vulnerable. It is time for Congress to empower negotiators in both parties, in both Chambers to act now. If we get involved with these potential solutions, the costs are going to be far less than if we wait until the next year, and we will be shielding some of our most vulnerable citizens from significant increases at a time when they can ill afford it. This is one area where there is overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. I would call upon my friends in the Republican leadership to take a break from this strange process they are going through and debate in the acrimony and the churn. Let's take a break and empower people to solve these problems now. Our senior citizens deserve no less.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I voted for H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act, which will delay enforcement of the Mortgage Disclosure Rule until early next year. While I understand concerns about this legislation and delaying enforcement, even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which drafted this regulation, has delayed the rule and acknowledged that further improvements need to be made. The Motion to Recommit would refine this legislation by ensuring that the path towards legal redress is not blocked for our most vulnerable homebuyers like veterans and seniors, which is why I voted for it as well as the underlying bill. Going forward, it's my hope that the Senate will continue to improve the Homebuyers Assistance Act. The underlying objective of securing a more transparent and consumer- friendly process for home ownership is deeply important. The rule would increase transparency for mortgage lenders and reduce confusion for homebuyers seeking a mortgage, strengthening critical consumer protections. That's why it is necessary to get this right, even it takes a few more months.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday another horrific episode of gun violence--the seemingly unrelenting stream of tragedy and horror--only this time it was visited on Oregon, in a modest mill town of Roseburg. The scene of the carnage was a picturesque, some would say idyllic, community college campus just north of town, where a shooter burst into a classroom at Umpqua Community College and started methodically killing nine people, wounding seven others. On the 274th day of 2015, this was the 294th such episode. President Obama made an impassioned, forceful, and poignant response--at once fierce and sad, as eloquent as anything I have heard him say throughout his political career. And who could blame him? Not a single calendar week has passed during his second term without another mass shooting. The core of his message was the question for all Americans, especially the apologists for gun violence: Why is the United States the only developed country in the world that cannot protect our families from gun massacres? No other country comes remotely close to this carnage. Why should we lose 15 times as many as our family members as Germany every year? When other countries like Canada, Britain, and Australia--that are probably more similar to our country than any others--why were they able to respond not just with outrage or moments of silence, but with action after mass shooting events, to make a difference, to make their families safer, 10 times safer in Australia than in the United States? It is past time that people who claim to be leaders in both parties answer this question. I am pleased that the response from my party was not one of hopelessness, resignation, or ``stuff happens,'' but instead calls to action with simple, commonsense steps that are widely supported by the American public. I am pleased that Hillary Clinton was first and foremost with a strong call to action. I am pleased that Senator Bernie Sanders appears to be changing his attitude and policies on gun safety. It is interesting that two Democratic Senators running for re- election last year, Mark Begich and Mark Pryor, who cast what I can only describe as a craven vote against universal background checks, lost anyway. It ought to be a message about our values and our direction. I am hopeful that there will be greater accountability for both parties to supply solutions. There is no excuse for ours to be the only developed country that cannot protect our children. The American public should demand answers from everyone who pretends we can't protect our children. Ours is the only country, for instance, where leaders prohibit the government from even investigating gun violence, its causes, and solutions. The President exhorted us to not be numb to gun violence. One is hopeful in the midst of this unprecedented bizarre Presidential nominating process, already in full swing, with more than a year yet to go, that perhaps we have the opportunity to make sure this doesn't leave the national political stage. With comments like Republican candidate Ben Carson condemning President Obama's decision to visit and console the families in Roseburg in a private meeting, that somehow he would wait for the next one, it is stunning. I was in Springfield, Oregon, when President Clinton visited those families, consoling them, demonstrating compassion and the concern of the country. It was a sign of respect and was moving to all who witnessed it. I can't imagine a more callous, heartless remark than that of Dr. Carson, who would wait until the next one. Reasonable people should ask reasonable questions about reasonable solutions and demand from politicians their answer to the question: When stuff happens, why can't we protect our families from this slaughter, and what are they prepared to do to change it?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our public media stations are a force for positive change in communities all across this country. The best example of this is the American Graduate initiative. This initiative, made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which leverages public media to address America's high school dropout crisis; And set an ambitious goal of seeing a 90 percent high school graduation rate by 2020. This Saturday, October 3rd marks the fourth annual American Graduate Day, a live public media event broadcast on public media stations across the country. And make no mistake--it is a crisis. Each year, over one million students drop out of our high schools. In turning the tide, the American Graduate initiative has been, and continues to be, a proven force for change. Local stations extend the reach of this national broadcast content and have produced almost 1,000 hours of locally-focused programming. Find a moment to tune in and see for yourself the incredible work happening in your community thanks to public media.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 because it is a budget gimmick, shamelessly hiding behind the guise of national security. Make no mistake--America would be less safe were this bill to move forward in its present form. The President has already said--as he has been saying for months-- that he will veto this bill if it misuses Overseas Contingency Operation funds to evade the congressionally mandated budget caps. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans did exactly that and worse. They had an opportunity to avoid leaving our troops in the lurch by pursuing a balanced and fair budget deal that would unwind the reckless sequester for the national security activities at non-defense agencies like State, Homeland Security, and the VA. In addition, this Authorization contains a budget-busting time bomb, the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, which is such a naked attempt to rob sister accounts to pay for pet projects that, for the third year in a row, Congressional appropriators have refused to fund. The Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was created in the FY15 Defense Authorization because the Navy could not afford to simultaneously build back up to a 300-plus surface fleet and procure 12 Ohio-class replacement nuclear submarines. The Sea-Based Deterrence Fund didn't solve their problem of how SSBN(X) would be paid for. It simply shifted that burden onto the larger Pentagon budget. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the new ballistic missile submarine program is expected to cost $139 billion. Sadly, the account grew worse in conference by expanding its use to also include attack submarines and aircraft carriers. This account is emblematic of a larger problem, which is that this Defense Authorization marches our country towards a complete rebuild of our nuclear arsenal and triad, something that a Congressionally-appointed National Defense Panel estimated will cost up to $1 trillion. While I cannot support this bill, I want to acknowledge the leadership taken by the House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairs and Ranking Members for tackling some tough issues in this Authorization that previous efforts have ignored. This bill includes bipartisan acquisition reform aimed at containing defense spending, difficult but necessary military retirement and benefit changes, and makes strides towards rightsizing the Pentagon workforce. Critically, it includes provisions that I championed to reform and extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SW) program for those brave Afghan men and women who risked their lives to aid our troops, but are now in danger as a result of their courageous service. We cannot allow more of our Afghan allies, and their families, to fall victim to the merciless Taliban. Should this Defense Authorization succumb to a protracted political fight, these provisions dealing with the Afghan SIV program should be broken off and moved through Congress as standalone legislation. I am prepared to introduce and push such a bill, as I've done in the past. Though some hard decisions were made in this Defense Authorization, that leadership is overshadowed by continued budget gimmickry on Overseas Contingency Funds, the Sea Based Deterrence Fund, and harmful policy riders such as the continued effort to prevent the administration from rightfully closing Guantanamo Bay. Both the House and Senate Ranking Members of the Armed Services Committees could not support this bill. Nor can I. The president will veto it. That's because our men and women in uniform should not be taken hostage in a budgetary circus. Just yesterday, 151 Republicans voted to shutdown the government, including our military. America cannot be great if it's subject to one manufactured crisis after another. We can get this right. All it would take is a little leadership and some common sense. Sadly, both are in short supply in this process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this issue. I listened to the impassioned pleas from my friends on the other side of the aisle about horrific acts of the thugs who run Iran. Nobody disputes that, and nothing before us would take away the sanctions that we have against their terrorist activity. We are all committed to justice for those victims, but bear in mind what this legislation seeks to do is to unwind another critical objective of the United States, of our allies, to prevent a nuclear- armed Iran. That agreement was a signal achievement of diplomacy not just of the Obama administration, but of Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain, working with us to secure the strongest agreement that we have seen to contain these thugs' nuclear ambitions. The world is united with us to restrain a nuclear Iran. Now, we have had testimony from our partners that, if the United States walks away from that agreement, we are on our own. They are not going to continue to enforce nuclear sanctions against Iran, and, ultimately, Iran will get its money and a free hand to develop nuclear weapons unencumbered by the allies that we have assembled and the pressure that we have put on them. Now, my friends, Mr. Engel and Mr. Connolly, are correct. The construct here is very difficult, even if this were to be approved, to actually work out on paper. But take it a step further. These elements have been in place for years and have not resulted in any movement for the victims. We have had what the rest of the world thinks is a significant breakthrough with Iran. We have got an area of cooperation, and the world is united with us to keep the pressure on them. I would suggest, rather than throwing this agreement in the trash can and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and make them stronger--and, ultimately, they will get their money because India and China are going to go ahead and start buying oil from Iran again as the sanctions collapse. It will be the United States against the world again. We couldn't even sanction itty-bitty Cuba to change their regime. It takes multinational efforts to be able to make changes. This agreement is an important first step, and I would suggest it gives us an opportunity to continue putting pressure on Iran to be able to obtain the justice that we all want for those victims.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Politico yesterday had a fascinating story about Chuck Schumer, widely expected to become the next Democratic leader in the Senate, in talks with Republican leaders in the House and Senate about a major tax and infrastructure deal. It would give a lower tax rate on hundreds of billions of dollars parked overseas by international corporations and use the tax on those proceeds to finance a more robust 6-year transportation bill. What is not to like? I have been working tirelessly for us to be able to finance America's failing infrastructure, having introduced the first gas tax increase on the Federal level in 22 years. I have been working with stakeholders, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, organized labor, truckers, AAA, contractors, transit, the whole array of people who build, operate, use, and rely upon American infrastructure. I am sympathetic to getting this job done. America is falling apart while we are falling behind. It doesn't work to try to pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. The simple answer that Ronald Reagan successfully championed as President was raising the gas tax, in his case, 125 percent. It is taking hold around the country as even very red Republican States--six already this year--have raised their gas taxes, and our legislation in Congress is gaining more attention as people understand that this is the best way forward to solve the problem. What is wrong with the deal that is being examined by Senator Schumer? Well, first of all, the path towards international tax reform is very complex and rocky, with many competing interests. No one disputes that the patchwork of our corporate tax system that we have currently is unfair to some and produces distorted results. We have the highest stated statutory corporate tax rate in the world. But, for many corporations, that is not so much of a problem because they have been working to carve out their own exemptions and loopholes so that what the average that corporations pays is much less than the stated rate. But, for some, particularly those that build and operate in the United States, they do pay that statutory rate and it is a problem and it is unfair. There is also still the incentive for some to park more money overseas. Most of us think that it is going to require revenue to buy down the corporate rate, to reform it, and repatriated dollars would be a source to adjust that in a way that doesn't make the deficit much, much worse. There is also a problem of competitiveness. Some organizations actually have offshore operations to be closer to their markets. If you are going to sell in China, for instance, it makes sense perhaps to manufacture it there rather than ship it halfway around the world with all the complexity and expense. I have been meeting with a wide variety of corporate tax officers who ask the question about equity. Why should they with their overseas operations pay for domestic infrastructure that everybody benefits from? That is a great question. This has the potential of actually costing the Treasury more in the long run, making it harder to have an equitable adjustment in corporate tax reform, and shift the burden that should be paid by all American users instead concentrated on a small portion of American taxpayers on their overseas operation. They ask where is the equity, and it is hard to see. That is why we have the basic principle of a user fee: People use a service and they pay for it. The gas tax for decades has served that purpose since it was first introduced in my home State of Oregon in 1919 for road construction. It is still the simplest, most direct, most fair, easiest to administer, and would enable us to solve this problem in a matter of months. Unfortunately, the path we are on is very uncertain as well as unfair. We are going to have the 35th short-term extension of the highway trust fund next month. No country has become great building its infrastructure 10 months at a time. The answer is not an elaborate deal that is being discussed which makes it less likely we solve the problems. Why don't we just deal with it directly, put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs, actually reduce the deficit, increase the economy, and strengthen the quality of life in communities large and small all across America. Let's not engage in gimmickry. Let's rebuild and renew America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 3495, the so-called ``Women's Public Health and Safety Act,'' which is just the latest attack on Planned Parenthood, an essential health service provider for 70,000 women annually in Oregon and over 2.7 million women nationally. In my community, Planned Parenthood has provided compassionate and critical care for over 50 years and is a necessary part of our health care system. Planned Parenthood centers serve a greater share of safety-net contraceptive clients than any other type of safety-net providers. These clinics are more likely to make reproductive care accessible, and in a timely manner, to the women who need it most H.R. 3495 would not only deny critical health services for low-income women, but it would undermine the entire Medicaid program. The language is so broad and vague that it could result in whole hospital systems being denied Medicaid participation--further eroding low-income individuals' access to care. Under this bill, a state could remove any health professional that ever worked in a health care practice of any kind that at one point was involved in providing abortion. This assault on Medicaid will result in fewer providers to serve the 72 million low-income men, women, and children covered by the program. These attacks are appalling--they are built on misinformation and rhetoric and need to stop.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, amidst all the turmoil on the world stage, I think many of us are still processing the visit from Pope Francis last week, his call for us to care for the planet, for our fellow man, for all of God's creatures. In the background here on Capitol Hill, there is more than a little turmoil in terms of what is going to happen after the resignation of Speaker Boehner. There looks to be a little good news that we will avert a government shutdown, at least for a few months, as we continue to have the misdirected crusade to defund Planned Parenthood. I have been focusing on the epidemic of deaths from prescription drug abuse and heroin overdoses. Mr. Speaker, it is something that is creating problems from Portland, Oregon, to Portland, Maine; yet, in the midst of that epidemic, there was a stark symbol of our dysfunction on something that most Americans now think should be legal. There are over 200 million Americans that live in States where they can get access to medical marijuana. Four States and the District of Columbia have legalized adult use, and more States are going to be voting on it again this year; yet we have arrested over 7 million people over the last 10 years, costing billions of dollars. It can turn lives upside down, particularly lives of young men of color, especially African Americans, who are arrested many times more often even though their use is the same as White young men. It fuels that frustration that one can understand in the African American community. I would suggest that it is time for us to focus law enforcement resources on real drug problems, deal with that epidemic of prescription drug abuse and heroin overdose. Let's deal with making sure that our children are safe rather than at risk from a vast underground drug distribution network. accounts, so this is an attractive source of revenue for people who would like to rob them. Let's let the States make their own policy until we reclassify marijuana, frankly, no less dangerous than tobacco, which is completely legal in every State. In the meantime, we should at least stay out of the way, let States formulate their own policy, and have local authorities deal with real problems, not creating unnecessary ones.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 25, 2015, I voted against H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, which, if enacted, would severely weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under current law, NEPA requires federal agencies to go through a public assessment of the environmental impacts of certain proposed federal actions and mandates the consideration of alternatives to those actions. This process often identifies alternatives that are less costly and have fewer impacts on the environment. While I support efforts to refine our regulatory process in a manner that rewards outcomes instead of dictating onerous processes, H.R. 348 adds confusion and would lead to worse outcomes for our environment, communities and future generations. This bill would allow potential developers to prepare environmental review documents for their proposed projects, creating clear conflicts of interest. The bill prohibits agencies from using the social cost of carbon in the environmental review or decision-making process and it limits the ability of an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a permit or license. The bill imposes arbitrary and rigid deadlines for review and approval, and it provides for default approvals of permits or licenses if deadlines are not met; a measure that wholly undermines the environmental review process. The stated goal of this bill is to help projects--including infrastructure projects--to move forward more quickly. The NEPA process, however, is not the reason for project delays; other factors such as project complexity and under-resourced agencies are to blame. At the Army Corps of Engineers, there is a $60 billion backlog of authorized water resources projects that were successfully approved under NEPA, but have not been built due to lack of funding. Our roads and bridges are in disrepair, not due to NEPA, but because the Congress has failed to act to raise the gas tax, leaving the federal government short of resources. The Highway Trust Fund is projected to need $90 billion in additional revenue over the next six years just to stay solvent. Additionally, the NEPA process, which ensures the public has a voice in the planning of major projects that impact their communities, leads to better decision-making and better projects. In the end, NEPA saves time, money and reduces negative impacts. NEPA's positive impact is unquestionable--it is one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws, ensuring careful decision making and public participation. I am disappointed to see H.R. 348 pass the House, which will only limit the public's participation, increase confusion and undermine responsible agency reviews.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Fair Access to Education Act of 2015. This legislation would bring fairness to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, which determines federal student aid, and currently asks eligibility questions about a student's drug conviction history. Under this legislation, an applicant with misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses will not have to check the box when applying for federal financial assistance. It also immediately provides eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance to those whose applications were suspended due to a marijuana misdemeanor offense. Too often those with misdemeanor drug offenses, such as simple marijuana possession, continue to be discriminated against or stigmatized long after they've paid their fines or served their time. Such is the case when it comes to higher education. One of our greatest opportunities as Americans to better ourselves and start anew is pushed out of reach for many because of an outdated bias built into our federal student aid application. Under current law, the FAFSA requires applicants to disclose any drug-related offense they've had while receiving federal student aid. This outdated question is on the application because of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which authorizes federal and state judges to deny certain federal benefits, including student aid, to persons convicted of drug trafficking or possession. If that box is checked when a student submits an application, the application is immediately placed on hold and the student is informed that the application cannot be processed and additional steps are required to determine eligibility. This intimidating process often has the effect of discouraging students from continuing. Public opinion and state law is shifting dramatically on questions related to marijuana. Prohibition is outdated and does not reflect how Americans think, nor how they actually behave. Nearly half of the population has smoked marijuana at some point in their lives, and now in four states and the District of Columbia, people can do so legally. It is senseless that we would limit a student's future for any drug offense for which they have served their sentence, and even more senseless that we would do so for an offense for a drug that a majority believes should be legal. The FAFSA question--number 23 for the 2015-16 school year--is outdated, unfair, and traps those seeking to recover from mistakes and create opportunities for themselves. Current policy is inevitably more harmful to those with the greatest need. If a student has a misdemeanor marijuana offense but is fully able to afford an education on their own, their future is not limited. But if a student has taken strides to recover from past mistakes and is seeking help in getting an education, current policy will only hold them back. The Fair Access to Education Act would help reduce recidivism and strengthen our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to welcome the 35 World War II veterans visiting Washington, DC this week from our home state of Oregon. Their trip was made possible by Honor Flight of Oregon and their presence in the Capitol today is a humbling one. We are joined by Navy, Army, Marine, Merchant Marine, Coast Guard and Army Air Force veterans who have faced terrors and dangers with bravery that continues to inspire. In this group are veterans who fought in Iwo Jima; those who fended off and survived the harrowing attack on the USS Franklin; documentarians who photographed the war; cryptographers who kept our secrets safe; and mechanics of all branches that kept us marching forward. These are just a few examples of the contributions these heroes made, but each deserves individual recognition: Kenneth Anderson; John Fellas; RD, Sr Fortner; James Riopelle; Stanley Wheeler; Donald Bean; Marvin Johnson; Leo Schammel; Earl Uptegrove; Clyde Harrop; Roland Halberg; Lawrence Torrey; Donald Fowler; Patrick O'Brien; Eldon Dyer; Raymond Stahly; Robert Bortvedt; Lawrence Kissinger; Everett Lee; Gerald Midbust; Harold Goff; Raynold Deluca Sr; Murray Watts; Lyle Wescott; George Prusynski; Donald Cresap; William Birkeland; Harold Englet; Kenneth Kerns, Juanita Price; Donald Ford; James Sperling; Robert Zimmerman; Rupert Fixott; and Joe Bruer. The world as we know it would not be the same were it not for their courage, their bravery, and I hope that this trip bestows upon them a tiny fraction of the respect and gratitude that can never be fully repaid. To our Greatest Generation, I wish them my very best on their visit and thank them for their service. These events are so important, connecting our veterans with the memorials erected to honor their service and with younger generations to ensure they know this important history. And a trip such as this would not be possible without the help of the volunteers who donate their time, resources and passion to Honor Flight Oregon. They ensure that each visit is met with the heroes welcome these veterans deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 3504, which would limit women's health care choices and interfere in the doctor- patient relationship, and against H.R. 3134, which would defund Planned Parenthood. It is bizarre to watch the manufactured controversy surrounding ambush-type, heavily-edited journalism used to discredit Planned Parenthood. It's not just the blatantly manipulative and misleading tactics that are being used, which should be enough for most people to reject the allegations on their face. These attacks do not reflect my experience and knowledge of the amazing, dedicated, civic-minded men and women who have built, supported, and led Planned Parenthood in my community. For decades, I have admired these pillars of community, leaders in education, religion, business, and other civic affairs that provided the vision, the volunteer effort, and personal contributions to women's health and reproductive freedom. There is no question that because of their efforts, tens of thousands of abortions never occurred in our community and those that did occur, did not result in harm to women. Because of their efforts, Oregon's 11 Planned Parenthood centers provided care to over 70,000 women in 2013, including over 25,000 breast and cervical cancer screenings. Nationally, Planned Parenthood cares for more than 2.5 million women annually. Planned Parenthood centers serve a greater share of safety-net clients than any other type of safety-net providers. Nearly 80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood have incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty--these clinics offer affordable health care options for women who may have no alternate source of care. The fact that we are engaged in a concerted assault against the provision of essential services to women, especially women of color and low-income status is appalling. If people would take the time, as I have, to visit these facilities, meet the employees, and most importantly, know these community leaders that have made it possible to protect women's health, to prevent countless abortions, and to promote wellbeing and education, would see the lies behind this heated rhetoric and misguided attacks.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is bizarre to watch the manufactured controversy surrounding ambush-type, heavily edited filming used to discredit Planned Parenthood. These attacks do not reflect my experience and knowledge of the amazing, dedicated, civic-minded men and women--pillars of our community--who have built, supported, and led Planned Parenthood in my community. There is no question that, because of their efforts, tens of thousands of abortions never occurred. Because of their efforts, 70,000 women in Oregon last year received services. They are people who know their communities, Planned Parenthood leadership understands that this heated rhetoric, outrageous claims, and attack against service to low-income women is not just false, it is wrong. It is bizarre to watch the manufactured controversy surrounding ambush-type, heavily-edited journalism used to discredit Planned Parenthood. It's not just the blatantly manipulative and misleading tactics that are being used, which should be enough for most people to reject the allegations on their face. These attacks do not reflect my experience and knowledge of the amazing, dedicated, civic-minded men and women who have built, supported, and led Planned Parenthood in my community. For decades, I have admired these pillars of community, leaders in education, religion, business, and other civic affairs that provided the vision, the volunteer effort, and personal contributions to women's health and reproductive freedom. There is no question that because of their efforts, tens of thousands of abortions never occurred in our community and those that did occur, did not result in harm to women. Because of their efforts, Oregon's 11 Planned Parenthood centers provided care to over 70,000 women in 2013, including over 25,000 breast and cervical cancer screenings. Nationally, Planned Parenthood services over 2.5 million women annually. Planned Parenthood centers serve a greater share of safety-net clients than any other type of safety-net providers. Nearly 80 percent of women using Planned Parenthood have incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty--these clinics offer affordable health care options for women who may have no alternate source of care. The fact that we are engaged in a concerted assault against the provision of essential services to women, especially women of color and low-income status is appalling. If people would take the time, as I have, to visit these facilities, meet the employees, and most importantly, know these community leaders that have made it possible to protect women's health, to prevent countless abortions, and to promote wellbeing and education, they would see the lies behind this heated rhetoric and misguided attacks.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our Speaker stood before us a few minutes ago and sounded a somber, serious note. I am sorry the process that we are going through does not reflect that somber, serious attitude. It is sad that it has come to this: a parody of what could have been a week-long, thoughtful, thorough debate about our relationship with Iran, which Republicans, instead, have turned into an incoherent, partisan shouting match. It ignores the reality, the complexity, and the opportunity. There has been no discussion, for example, about how America seriously mismanaged our relationship with Iran since we helped the British overthrow their popularly elected government in 1953 and installed the Shah as dictator; how we backed the murderous Saddam Hussein's war against Iran that cost up to 1 million lives, and we looked the other way when he used poison gas--a real weapon of mass destruction; how we labeled them the ``axis of evil'' when they were working with us in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. It is amazing that the majority of Iranian people still likes us. Now, I strongly oppose the current Iranian leadership; but, for years, I have been working for a diplomatic solution with other countries because sanctions only work when other countries join us. Well, they did, and we have an opportunity today to enforce a nonnuclear future for Iran. The Republican talking point is, somehow, they are going to get $150 billion. That talking point, however, ignores the reality. Those five powerful countries that joined with us, that help get the agreement, they are going to walk away if America walks away from the sanctions they have imposed on Iran if America walks away from the deal. As multilateral sanctions will dissolve, Iran will get its money anyway and nuclear weapons, if it wants, in a year or two. It will be the United States and Israel that will be isolated, and the world will be less safe. These are some of the reasons that the major independent experts have said the Iran Nuclear agreement is the best alternative for the United States. Not a perfect agreement, but the best agreement. Let's use all of our time and energy to make this agreement work and to strengthen relationships in the Middle East to avoid more mistakes currently championed by the same people who gave us the disastrous Iraq war.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I concluded my summer tour of Oregon at the fire control center on the Warm Springs Indian reservation. Summer was an amazing time in my State. Smoke enveloped downtown Portland and drifted all the way for 270 miles to the south in Medford. As I drove past, into central Oregon, the Crater Lake National Park consumed 25 square miles. Throughout the West, 8.5 million acres have already been burned this year. And like we hear almost every year, the 2015 fire season is one of the worst on record. We should acknowledge the amazing men and women who are on the front lines and the tremendous strain they bear. We need so many people that we have actually had active military personnel brought online for the first time in a decade. Even firefighters from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have come to assist in these efforts. One cannot say enough about the tremendous bravery and sheer hard work involved on so many levels with the men and women who are literally putting their lives on the line for this heroic fight. But it is important to note that we are not just decimating our forests. We are decimating the Forest Service budget. The portion of the overall budget spent on fighting wildfires has grown in the last 20 years from 16 percent to over one-half, 52 percent. Because Congress refuses to treat wildfires like other natural disasters, the Forest Service budget is being consumed, squeezing out other critical areas, not just maintaining these special places and trails and recreational opportunities, but even the efforts that would deal with forest health and reduce the danger and the cost of future firefights. The trend is that two-thirds of the budget in the next 10 years will be firefighting. Absolutely, totally unacceptable. These fires ought to be treated like any other natural disaster, not decimate our ability to manage our national forests. The people dealing with these megafires know that part of the problem is climate change making itself felt. Less than 2 percent of these megafires consume almost one-third of the total fire suppression costs because our forests are drier. There is less snow and rainfall, one more graphic reminder of the devastating impact of climate change, with higher temperatures and less water. It is past time that Congress steps up to reduce carbon emissions. Perhaps the Pope in 2 weeks will inspire us to do something about climate change. But, in the meantime, we should at least pass H.R. 167, the Wildfire Disaster Act--bipartisan legislation introduced on the very first day of this Congress, but languishing in committee--that would treat megafires like other natural disasters, not discriminate against the Forest Service. One final point is that we should stop making the problem worse by allowing more and more people to move into the fire zone in the wildland-urban interface and give these people the illusion that somehow they are going to be provided with urban-level fire protection. Sixty percent of the new homes since 1990 have been built in the flame zone. We should stop this madness because we are putting more people at risk not just to their properties and their families, but also the men and women who fight forest fires to protect structures. Remember the 19 hotshots who were killed in Arizona a couple years ago who lost their lives trying to save homes that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place? Commonsense budgeting, fighting climate change, and reasonable land use will reduce costs, protect lives, and allow us to begin spending money on prevention, which will, in turn, reduce further costs. It more than pays for itself. Sensible budgeting, prevention, sound land use planning, will protect people and our forests, along with our budgets, while we start our long overdue actions to reduce carbon pollution. It is time that Congress steps up to start addressing these problems now. This is not rocket science.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our vote on the nuclear agreement with Iran will be the most important decision I have made in Congress since voting against the disastrous Iraq war. I am under no illusions that the clerics and military that run Iran are friends of the United States. To the contrary, they are engaged in activities that are opposed to the United States interests and those of many of our friends and allies. This agreement does not resolve all our differences, change Iranian behaviors, or provide greater freedom for its people. What it does do is give the world 15 years of security to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It also demonstrates our ability to work with our international partners--France, Great Britain, Germany, especially Russia and China-- to bring Iran to the negotiating table, to force them to make important concessions, and to retain the ability to re-impose crippling sanctions if they violate the agreement. It has a strong mechanism for surveillance and snapping back sanctions to give us confidence that it is strongly in the Iranians' interest to comply. Fifteen years is not forever. But taking the current nuclear breakout time of less than 15 weeks for Iran to a minimum of a year and having assurance for 15 years is a remarkable achievement. The alternative is not ``a better deal.'' There is no evidence that there is something beyond this agreement that the Iranians would agree with or, most critically, that has the support of the other five countries that made this agreement possible in the first place. The alternative is for the United States to lose the support of our allies so that Iran gets access to its money anyway, the partnership dissolves, and this important moment is lost. The United States still retains the ability to walk away from the deal if it is rejected or violated by Iran. This puts us in a much stronger position to re-impose sanctions with more leverage going forward. In the final analysis, the United States or Israel, for that matter, can always resort to military force. But it is far better, however, to make this agreement work, to monitor and enforce it, and build on this unique international partnership. Our work will not be done in the Middle East with Iran, even if this agreement is adopted and Iran abides by it. We still must be prepared to confront Iran where they are involved with aggressive action against other countries, especially our allies. We must be prepared to support our friends in the Middle East, like Israel and Saudi Arabia. We must be prepared to make the diplomatic efforts and demonstrate commitment and resolve wherever it is necessary. Those who would resort to force in the first instance will always retain that option. We risk little trying to make diplomacy with rigorous inspections work and to strengthen the partnership with countries that made this agreement possible, to redouble our ongoing efforts to stabilize this deeply troubled Middle East region. The agreement doesn't solve our problems, but it simplifies one of the greatest threats to the Middle East, not just Iranian nuclear weapons, but a potential nuclear arms race with potentially catastrophic results. I am comfortable being in agreement with some of the most distinguished leaders of past American administrations, both Republican and Democratic, who have agreed, notwithstanding their reservations and cautions, that the acceptance of this agreement is the best path forward for the United States and world peace. It is sad that, for the very first time, a critical American foreign policy decision has become so partisan in Congress. But the weight of evidence is for the agreement to be adopted, and we should do so.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, predictably, Congress is sidestepping the transportation funding issue for the 34th time with yet another short-term extension, this one until the end of October. No nation has become great building its infrastructure 3 months, 8 months, 10 months at a time. This is a symbol of the failure of Congress and the last two administrations to deal meaningfully with the need to rebuild and renew America. Our country is falling apart as we fall behind. We all can remember the days when the United States had the finest infrastructure in the world. Well, those days have long since passed. By any objective measure, we are now down about 25th in the world, and we continue to fall further. This failure has consequences for Americans every single day. The average damage to a car is over $500 a year in maintenance costs due to poor road conditions, more than $125 billion a year to the economy with congestion, being stuck in traffic. Because of poor road conditions, infrastructure failures, and an inability to keep pace with growth, there are people being killed and injured every day across America. It doesn't have to be this way. The failure to get a 6-year reauthorization, which we haven't had since 1998, is due to one simple fact: Congress is still trying to pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. The solution is simple. Over three dozen Members of Congress have cosponsored legislation to raise the gas tax for the first time in 22 years, legislation that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, local government, transit, environmentalists, contractors, the largest collection of groups supporting any major issue before Congress. It is a solution that was advocated by President Ronald Reagan when he led the effort in his administration to raise the gas tax 125 percent. It is a solution that has been embraced by six red Republican States already this year. The latest failure to slide into the end of October could actually be our salvation. I have personally lobbied President Obama to call for an end to this charade. The President believes in infrastructure and every year has offered up an approach from his perspective. I would urge the Congress and all of us to draw one final red line. This October 31 deadline ought to be it. Let Congress stew. Let things grind to a halt if we don't do our job. The gas tax legislation is already written and can be approved if the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee would deal with it for a week. It is a simple one-page bill. It is not necessary to tie ourselves in knots. And then, if we give a number to the authorizing committee, in a matter of weeks, they can develop that 6-year bill that would make such a difference. We could meet the President's deadline, have this done once and for all, put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs all across the country, improving the quality of life, making our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, more economically secure, and stop playing with gimmicks that highlight our dysfunction. Let's prove to the American public and, more importantly, to us that we can actually function the way things were designed, using a user fee that is perfectly attuned to road needs that have served us well for over half a century. So, please, Mr. President, why don't you make it clear that you are going to call an end to this charade. Give Congress 3 more months to do our job. It doesn't need any more. We operate from cliff to crisis. Deadlines are simply an alarm clock to get started. Well, this particular alarm clock could start ticking now if you are calling a halt to our continued irresponsibility.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the United States Postal Service (USPS) provides universal connectivity all across the country and a low cost delivery service that not just individual families rely on, but businesses of all sizes. However, the Postal Service faces growing financial problems attributable to burdensome mandates in existing law and the continued decline in mail service volumes. As a result, the Postal Service is hard-pressed to identify cost-saving initiatives that can alleviate their financial woes while at the same time maintaining their high quality of service. That is why I have introduced the Postal Innovation Act of 2015, which will authorize the Postal Service to take simple, common-sense steps towards modernization such as updating its fleet of vehicles to align with updated environmental and safety standards, and broadening its services to reflect the evolving demands of today's consumers. The Postal Service must be given the flexibility to innovate and provide its customers modern services. By offering basic financial services, internet connectivity, and the ability to ship beer, wine, and spirits, this Act will allow the Postal Service to not only raise revenue, but remain a cornerstone of American communities. In addition to raising revenue and increasing services to meet consumer demands, upgrading to energy efficient technology can reduce the postal fleet's carbon emissions while simultaneously cutting costs. This is critical because the federal government ought to lead by example, not lag decades behind. Further, implementing cutting-edge active safety and crash avoidance technology across the postal fleet will make streets safer for all users in every community in America. The Postal Service is a vast and sprawling enterprise that touches almost every household six days a week. We will all benefit from preserving and improving this vital piece of America's infrastructure and fabric of life.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, I voted against H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015. This dangerous and unnecessary legislation not only fails to improve coal ash regulation, it seriously undermines the EPA's efforts to regulate coal combustion waste to protect human health and the environment. Coal ash, the waste produced from the burning of coal, contains toxic materials such as arsenic, lead and chromium. According to the EPA, in 2012, coal-fired power plants in the U.S. generated 110 million tons of coal ash. The improper or unsafe disposal of coal ash can lead to catastrophic releases of toxins if a failure occurs at the disposal site or, as is more commonly the case, contaminants slowly leach into groundwater and drinking water sources. We have known for some time of the need to regulate the disposal of coal ash and after several years, extensive consultation, and over 450,000 public comments, the EPA published a final, comprehensive rule to establish national criteria for the disposal of coal ash on April 17, 2015. H.R. 1734 is an attempt to gut the EPA's final rule before it even has the chance to go into effect. The bill would eliminate restrictions for how close existing surface impoundments can be to drinking water sources and would eliminate liner requirements for existing surface impoundments. It authorizes states to implement coal ash management permitting programs, but these programs do not need to meet national standards. In short, it eliminates, delays or weakens environmental protections and threatens health and public safety. There is no greater public need than access to clean and safe drinking water. I strongly oppose this legislation because it undercuts national protections and undoes important regulations to safeguard drinking water sources. We must use our legislative prerogative to protect public health and safety and not in a manner that poses risks to our communities and our environment as H.R. 1734 would do.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act of 2015'' that will save American taxpayers more than $40 billion over the next decade. American taxpayers are subsidizing some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world with their tax dollars. These subsidies underwrite the costs of oil and gas production, including offsetting intangible drilling costs, the cost of tertiary injectants, and costs associated with domestic production. There are also subsidies that offset foreign taxes, provide tax shelters disguising active income with passive losses, and subsidies that allow major oil companies to discount the value of their inventories. The ``End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act of 2015'' would end 10 of the most egregious tax loopholes enjoyed by the oil and gas industry--tax loopholes that have helped companies like Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell add to the billions in profits they already make every year. The legislation is very similar to President Obama's proposal to eliminate oil and gas tax preferences in his FY 2016 Budget. Instead of padding the bottom line of oil and gas companies, taxpayer dollars could be better spent renewing and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and investing in emerging clean resources like wind and solar that will help us combat climate change and transition to a clean energy future. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.