Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the way he framed this rule debate. Mr. Speaker, we have sort of a hodgepodge here of items that really deserve careful, sustained attention. There is no reason to lump this together. These are important items. And, sadly, the way it has been structured shuts down debate. There is no room under this rule for the Ex-Im Bank. I appreciate person after person coming to the floor, acknowledging that there is broad bipartisan interest in the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank and no rational reason to reject it. It is going to have serious consequences, as my friend from Washington pointed out. But there is another area that we are discussing here today that could also make a huge difference for our economy because we are dodging again our responsibilities to deal with a country that is falling apart as it is falling behind. My friend from Texas was too polite. The reason we don't have a 6- year reauthorization is because the House has not met its responsibility to outline how we pay for it. We are still trying to pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. Now we have got legislation that actually mirrors what Ronald Reagan did in 1982, when he called upon Congress to come back, raise the user fee 125 percent, and be able to put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, and maintain our roads and bridges and transit. We are not doing that. We have legislation in Ways and Means that has the broadest support of any major piece of legislation in Congress--organized labor, business, contractors, truckers, AAA, engineers--all committed to raising the user fee. They say: Charge us more so that we are going to be able to thrive. My friend from Colorado pointed out that the American public is paying now in congestion, in damage to their cars.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Work next week. Fund the transportation bill. Let the committee know what parameters they have and be able to revitalize and rebuild this country. It is time for us to step up.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. It is a little frustrating as we watch these disparate subjects lumped together on the floor with truncated debate. I want to speak to just one element that we are discussing here today, and that deals with the extension of transportation funding. The passage of this bill will represent the 34th short-term extension of the surface transportation bill. What country became great building its infrastructure 8 months at a time? 6 months at a time? a year at a time? It is a failure on the part of Congress to be able to understand that you cannot pay for 2015 infrastructure needs with 1993 dollars-- the last time we adjusted the user fee, the gas tax that supports the highway trust fund. I do see a little tiny glimmer of daylight with the 3-month extension. I have personally been urging the President to indicate that this is the last extension that he will sign. The House Ways and Means Committee could pass a funding measure in a week if we would roll up our sleeves. We have legislation there that is supported by the U.S. Chamber, AFL-CIO, by truckers, transit, the AAA, a wide array of people who say: Step up, raise our user fee, fund the transportation system, and do it right. We used to have the finest infrastructure in the world. Now, we are about 25th in the world and falling further. If the Ways and Means Committee would spend a week listening to the people who build, maintain, operate, and use our infrastructure, we could come to a resolution. Ronald Reagan's approach was to raise the user fee 125 percent in 1982.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If we did our job, sending clear signals about transportation funding, the appropriating committee, the T&I, if they knew what they were working with, could come forth with a bill easily in 2 months, so we wouldn't have to continue this charade. We could put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs in every city around the country; we would meet our obligations, and we would stop this shameful exercise of abrogating our responsibility to rebuild and renew.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend our nation celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Since its enactment in 1990, this seminal law has not only benefited millions of persons with disabilities; it has benefited every American. Today, we are a stronger, more diverse, fairer, and more accessible society thanks to the ADA. One part of our daily lives where the law's achievements are particularly visible is in public transportation. Mr. Michael P. Melaniphy, president and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), captured the hope and promise of the ADA in an essay published this week in APTA's Passenger Transport newsmagazine. I commend APTA and the public transportation community for their efforts to help us move closer to an America, as Mr. Melaniphy states, ``With equal access for everyone, everywhere and at all times.'' I submit his essay. (By Michael Melaniphy, APTA President & CEO) The history of public transportation is the story of American progress. Over decades of technological and social change, our industry has helped open frontiers, grow local economies, and improve the lives of millions. This month's silver anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a reminder of how mobility can change attitudes and break down barriers, both real and perceived. When Congress in 1990 guaranteed equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, seminal changes were already writing the prelude for a new century focused on freedom and equity. It was the year that Nelson Mandela was released from a South African prison. East and West Germany were united. Tim Berners-Lee gave us the World Wide Web. None of us could have foreseen what would emerge 25 years later, but we knew ADA would change the way our nation and our industry thought about access to public transportation. It's been said that without struggle there can be no progress, and the early days of implementing this new law were challenging. The country had just entered a recession and many cash-strapped public transit agencies were politically and fiscally encumbered. As a young general manager in Hamilton, Ohio, at the time, a dearth of resources for ADA compliance forced me to think differently about what equal access could mean for our community. We established a system-wide point deviation plan and introduced braille and tactile bus stop signs--both firsts in the nation that became models for other public transit organizations. The experience marked the beginning of a new personal passion to provide equal access to all. To design practical solutions, we needed to gain a true understanding of the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities. While sitting in wheelchairs, our drivers, supervisors and I learned firsthand what it was like to navigate high floor buses and ride when incorrectly secured in a paratransit vehicle. We donned blackened goggles to experience a bus trip without visual clues to our location, and we discovered that ADA-mandated curb cuts didn't necessarily mean a sidewalk would take us to a desired destination once we left the bus. All of this helped us become better problem solvers, better thought leaders and better citizens. Today the public transportation sector can take pride in how far we have come. Aspiration has replaced apprehension. From 1993 to 2013, the portion of accessible buses nearly doubled (from 51 percent to 99.8 percent), accessible light rail and streetcar fleets more than doubled (from 41 percent to 88 percent) and accessible commuter and hybrid rail fleets almost tripled (from 32 percent to 87 percent). Additionally, all of America's heavy rail and trolleybus fleets are 100 percent ADA compliant. Such advances in fixed route access have allowed tens of millions of people with disabilities to participate more fully in their communities. For individuals who are unable to use these modes of public transit, our systems provided more than 230 million demand- response trips in 2013--from a starting point of 68 million in 1990, the year ADA was enacted. The achievements of the past quarter century should encourage us to address any remaining challenges. Our industry must continue to build productive partnerships with the ADA community. Both physical and financial barriers persist for some legacy rail systems. And we need to find new, more cost-efficient ways to reach more people, especially through our fixed-route services. In this 25th-anniversary year, there is good reason to be enthusiastic. Unlike 1990, today's technological innovations appear almost monthly, offering fresh ways to increase access and choice while reducing fear and complexity for new riders. Still, an industry is made great not just by its newest machines, but by how it lives its values and meets its customers' greatest needs. Our work is about more than getting people to and from a workplace or doctor's office; it's about giving everyone the freedom, independence, and access to achieve their greatest potential. ADA has taught our industry that progress is impossible without change. Our commitment to fulfilling the law's spirit has become a core tenet of who we are and what we do. Like so many of the people whose stories are told--and who are pictured--in this special publication, I am proud to have played a role in ADA's foundational years. Thanks to ADA and the efforts of public transportation leaders, we move closer every day to a world with equal access for everyone, everywhere and at all times. It's a legacy that deserves to be celebrated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for the last 3 years, I have been coming to the floor, arguing against the folly of our attempting to pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. We haven't adjusted the gas tax since 1993, and that is why we haven't given the American people a 6-year, robust reauthorization of the surface transportation system since 1998. I find myself today in complete agreement with a column by James Surowiecki in the current issue of The New Yorker. It is entitled ``Raise the Gas Tax Already.'' He talks about how what is going on in the other body might be perceived as progress, might be a good thing, `` `real progress,' except for one thing: their complicated, jury-rigged plan is only necessary because of the continued refusal by Congress to embrace the obvious, economically sensible solution to highway funding, namely raising the gas tax. The federal gas tax is, as it should be, a key source of funding for highway spending.'' Locked currently at 18.4 cents: ``The problem is that the funding mechanisms the plan relies on are as gimmicky and haphazard as ever. The bill would raise money by, among other things, lowering the dividend rate paid to banks in the Federal Reserve system, raising certain customs fees, increasing collection rates on unpaid taxes, and selling off a hundred and one million barrels of oil from the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' ``If you're going to have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you should probably only sell oil from it for strategic reasons, not just because you want to raise some cash.'' ``And, from an economic perspective, paying for operating expenses by selling off assets is not a good way to manage your money.'' ``What's especially infuriating about the bill is that we already have, in the gas tax, an ideal tool for raising money to pay for highway repairs. It's a user tax: if you don't drive, you don't pay it, and if you drive less it costs you less.'' ``That's why even conservative economists, like Gregory Mankiw . . . have been ardent advocates of gasoline taxes.'' ``Indeed, the refusal of Congress to raise the gas tax is the ultimate expression of how reflexive and irrational the resistance to taxes has become. Opposition to higher income taxes has some theoretical justification: higher marginal rates discourage people from working more and investing. Seen in one light, they're a penalty for success. But no such argument exists against the gas tax: all it does, in essence, is ask drivers to pay for the roads they use. It's not even fair to say that keeping this tax at its current level is a check on big government, since most federal highway spending now goes toward rebuilding and repairing roads--maintenance that even conservatives recognize we must do. ``Highway revenue has to be raised somehow. Congress should show some political spine, discard the Rube Goldberg funding schemes, and stop treating all taxes as bad ones.'' I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. Indeed, we have seen six Republican States already this year show some political spine. They have raised the gas tax in Idaho, Utah, Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Georgia. It is time for us to assume our responsibilities, to rebuild and renew America, that used to have the finest infrastructure in the world, but now is locked into a downward spiral. Renewing and rebuilding America, giving a 6-year, robust reauthorization bill will put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in a matter of months all across the country, and it will make all our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentlewoman who represents the other Portland. I deeply appreciated her leadership and insight in this area. Mr. Chairman, these are areas that touch Americans on a whole host of levels, but one of the things that is important to note is that the extreme provisions of the preemption bill, of the underlying bill that we are discussing, actually have significant negative consequences on hard-working farmers in our State. There are vast world markets that we export to, and most of the world markets care about whether or not the product is genetically engineered or not. You can argue the merits, but the world market has made a judgment. We had some cross contamination in wheat for the genetically engineered strain, which set off alarm bells. Oregon farmers lost business as a result of that. The underlying bill would undercut the efforts of 40 States in working with their local communities to try and provide protections. Whether or not you are going to label it, there is no reason that you can't provide reasonable buffers around crops that are genetically modified so that you can help provide some protection. Why would we want to strip away the ability of State and local governments to provide those sort of protections? Now, in the long run, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is just have a uniform national policy that labels these, that gets rid of all the problems of multiplicity of labels and the costs and the confusion. My good friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has legislation that would do precisely that. But in the meantime, I deeply appreciate my friend from Maine stepping up to get rid of the most egregious part of the underlying bill, create a program that they can label their products GE free, and get rid of these egregious preemption provisions.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to some of the congressional reactions after the United Nations Security Council on Monday unanimously approved a resolution that creates a basis for international economic sanctions against Iran to be lifted. This was a 15-0 vote for the 104-page resolution that lays out the steps required for lifting the United Nations sanctions. Importantly, it sets up a way to renew sanctions if Iran does not abide by its commitments. If we get into a dispute over Iran's enrichment activities, these sanctions automatically snap back after 30 days; and the United States, as a member of the Security Council, could veto any effort to change that. The United States controls the snap back. Congress should not be annoyed but, instead, should understand and appreciate the unanimous support from the major countries that helped secure the agreement and enforce sanctions in the first place. The United States did not bring Iran to the negotiating table by itself. We have been sanctioning Iran for years with far more stringent and stronger economic body blows, but they didn't bite until we were joined by other powerful countries. It required Japan and India not to buy Iranian oil and the unanimous support of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, the so-called P5+1, to hammer this out. This is vital information for Congress to evaluate. Were we to walk away from this historic international agreement that has the participation of all the other major powers and the consumers of Iranian oil, we would be on our own. If we repudiate this hard-fought, carefully crafted diplomatic solution, we will be in an infinitely weaker position, Iran free to go about its business, and the support of those other countries that was so vital will melt away. There is a reason why 100 distinguished former administration officials, diplomats, and military officials from all across the political spectrum with backgrounds in Democratic and Republican administrations alike endorsed the proposal this week. This is the best solution in a difficult part of the world with a country that has been difficult to work with, to say the least, that has been involved with bad behavior and which has been bent on developing the capacity to create a nuclear weapon. We all want to prevent that or at least delay it as long as possible. This agreement achieves that additional time, 10 years or more. It has strong, enforceable sanctions in the event of failure; and the inspections regime, the controls over the Iranian nuclear power program continue for 10 years or more. Some are permanent. This is a watershed moment in American diplomacy, an opportunity to get past the troubled history for decades on a more positive footing. Iran, to this point, has lived up to its agreements; and we have watched their nuclear activity being dialed back and openness expanded, which would have been unthinkable 3 years ago. Last and most important to consider, the opponents of this agreement have no good alternative. They may huff and puff about all options being on the table; but realistically, the American public has little appetite for a war with Iran, a country bigger than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, with a population more than twice as large, well- educated and sophisticated. An attack would bring about unthinkable circumstances, even if the American public were likely to accept it, which is highly unlikely; and, of course, the United States will have squandered the alliance with the world's most powerful countries. They are aligned with us today, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get them back on our side again if we can't take yes for an answer. Congress should stop hyperventilating, look at the evidence, and we should move forward to support diplomacy as our best chance to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and chaos in the Middle East.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that will allow certain federal marijuana offenders the opportunity to clear their record. In 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize the personal possession of a small amount of marijuana. Since then, an additional 15 states have adopted similar policies. 23 states, the District of Columbia and Guam have passed laws that allow for the use of marijuana for certain medical conditions. In 2012, Washington and Colorado legalized the adult use of marijuana and in 2014, Oregon and Alaska followed suit. Oregon also recently led the nation in passing legislation to reduce penalties for marijuana offenses and qualifying certain marijuana offenses for expungement that could not previously be expunged. Under the Controlled Substances Act, however, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, classified as severely as heroin and LSD and defined as having no medical value. As a result, at the federal level, possessing or distributing marijuana, regardless of the amount and regardless of state law, remains illegal. While the current Administration's policy is not to prosecute those who are operating in compliance with state law so long as they meet certain federal enforcement priorities, this was not always the case and may not always be the case going forward. Until recently, too many people were wrongly caught up in the conflict between federal and state law. In 2013, after a state-legal marijuana industry began to emerge in Montana, a federal investigation responded with a series of 33 sentences against individuals, many who argued they were abiding by that system. The federal government also pursued drug trafficking charges against a family in Washington claiming to grow marijuana within the bounds of Washington's medical marijuana law. The $10 million trial ultimately resulted in a manufacturing charge that will remain on their record. In addition, while the federal government generally devotes more resources to large-scale drug trafficking and lets local jurisdictions enforce marijuana possession offenses, federal possession charges occur. Over the past 10 years, at least 1,100 people have been sentenced for marijuana possession at the federal level. The Clean Slate for Marijuana Offenses Act of 2015 creates a pathway for two groups of federal marijuana offenders to expunge--or clear the criminal record of--their marijuana offense: those who were federally charged for activity that was legal in the state they were in at the time; and those whose offense was the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. A federal drug conviction, no matter how small, can follow a person for their entire life, potentially limiting education and employment opportunities. As more and more states legalize different uses of marijuana, no one should be saddled with a record for activities related to marijuana that were legal in their state. In addition, the possession of a small amount should not ruin a person's chances at significant opportunities later in life. While the number of people charged with federal possession offenses is low, over seven million people have been arrested with marijuana possession when totaling state, federal and local law enforcement statistics over the past 10 years. This legislation sends a strong signal to state and local jurisdictions that allowing a pathway for expungement for certain marijuana offenders should happen at all levels of law enforcement.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following statement I made last year on H.R. 5021: I am pleased that Congress is finally acting today, not with a looming crisis, but one that is already upon us. This is entirely predictable. I have been arguing for months that Congress needs to act because the stopgap measure we did last Congress was designed to create precisely this Congress at precisely this time. Sixty-two groups may have signed on a letter of support, but they prefer us to act meaningfully for long-term funding. They accept this because it is the only alternative to shutting down activities this summer. My Republican friends are unwilling--not unable--but unwilling to resolve the funding contradictions. Revenues have failed to keep pace with the demands of an aging growing Nation, making no change for 21 years, as our infrastructure ages and falls apart, our Nation continues to grow and transportation patterns change. It is guaranteed that we should change as well. This Congress has refused to address its responsibilities. The House Ways and Means Committee has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. One of our most important responsibilities, uniquely ours, one that is unlike so many other items we deal with, it is possible to resolve. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that the Republicans have been in charge of Congress. Now, I understand there are conflicts within the Republican Caucus. There are some that appear satisfied with locking us into a slow, steady decline called for in the Republican budget-- no new projects until October of 2015 and a 30 percent reduction over the next decade, at exactly the time the Federal partnership should be enhanced, not reduced. There are others in the Republicans whose answer is to just abandon ship, to give up on the Federal partnership, slash the Federal gas tax, and abandon any hope of a national transportation policy and partnership to help States with projects that are multistate in nature or that need to be done whether economic times are bad. That would be tragic and wrong to abandon the partnership that has meant so much, but it is part of what is driving some of our Republican Tea Party friends. Just because there may not be a majority in the Republican ranks for either approach does not mean that we should continue to dither. Because Republicans friends are unwilling or unable to resolve this, we have frozen the Transportation Committee in place. They don't have a bill. They are not going to have a bill unless we resolve what the budget number is: increase, continue the downward slide, or abandon it altogether. We will be no better off next May to resolve this question. In fact, we will be worse off because we will be in the middle of a Presidential campaign, with a new Congress, maybe new committee lineups. We should reject this approach to hand off our responsibilities. We should resolve the resource question, and we should commit that this Congress is not going to recess for August vacation, not going to recess to campaign in October, until we have worked to give the American people a transportation bill they need--deserve--to jump-start the economy, create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs, and strengthen communities and families across the Nation. American infrastructure used to be the best in the world and a point of pride bringing Americans together. It is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further and further behind global leaders.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following statement I made last year on the Rule on H.R. 5021: I listened carefully to what you said, and you are right-- this closed rule is a disservice. My respected friend from Florida, I think, is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, this is not a solution, and it is not a deliberate, thoughtful process. We have not had a single hearing on transportation finance in the Ways and Means Committee all year. We didn't have one the year before that. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that Republicans have been in charge. This is a perfectly predictable problem that was created by the halfhearted bill that they passed last Congress. We knew this was coming for months. Now we are here. With all due respect, I, too, am disappointed that we have a rule that does not make in order broad discussion and amendment. We have been unable in this Congress to deal meaningfully with the looming transportation crisis. The gentleman is on the Transportation Committee. He doesn't have a bill. We are almost through this Congress, and we don't have a bill. America is falling apart. America is falling behind. We have failed to give America's communities the resources and a robust 6-year reauthorization plan. We have done it before under the chairmanship of Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and I was happy to have played a small role. That bill made a difference. If we fail to come to grips with the funding level and, instead, in approving this rule and the underlying bill, this Congress is giving itself a ticket out of town to adjourn and pass it on to not just the next Congress but to the Congress after that. Make no mistake. In May 2015, you are not going to be in any different a place. It is going to be May 2017. Congress has legitimate policy differences. I appreciate my friend from New Jersey. Some people think that the Federal Government should get out of the partnership that we have had and reduce or eliminate the Federal gas tax. They are willing to give up on the successful partnership and let each State decide what to do, when it wants to do it, or what it is able or not able to do. They would abandon all sense of a national vision and the ability to shape transportation policies. That is rejected by the mayors, rejected by county commissioners, rejected by State transportation officials. They want that partnership. Frankly, there are some people who feel the gas tax ought to be adjusted to deal with inflation and increased fuel economy as well as the demands of a growing Nation with an aging infrastructure. Some people are comfortable with the Republican budget, which will have no new projects for 15 months and will doom us to a 30 percent reduction over the next 10 years. Those are legitimate policy differences, but we are not dealing with them here on the floor. We are shrugging our shoulders, passing them on to the next Congress and, frankly, to the Congress after that. I agree with the people who build and maintain and use our transportation infrastructure. We should address this infrastructure question head on. American infrastructure used to be the best in the world and a point of pride, bringing Americans together. It is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further and further behind global leaders. We ought to reject this rule. We ought to allow full debate and, by all means, resolve the funding question now so we can go forward. America deserves no less.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for 35 years, the United States' relationship with Iran has been frozen in amber, locked in a series of proxy wars and covert struggles. Circumstances have occasionally thrust us together, like our shared actions against the Taliban after 9/11 or, more recently, working together against some of the most barbarous forces in the Middle East. Now, no one is under any illusions that the military leadership and hard-line clerics are bad actors opposed to the United States, but that is only part of the story of a complex narrative. The new and potentially more significant chapter of that relationship is an effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambition, not through force, but a combination of tough, multinational sanctions and diplomacy. This all started in the Bush administration a decade ago and has continued. Congress is now beginning the analysis of this historic agreement. For the first time, Iran's nuclear activities have been reined in. They have followed what they said they would do for the last 2 years. For the first time in history, we have an agreement that would last for a decade or more, reached not just by the United States alone--we could not have done this alone--but with all five members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, and the cooperation of potential consumers of Iranian oil like India and Japan. Now, we must be prepared to hear people, starting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, attack it. We will hear that it is not good enough, that it contains potential downsides. Iran might well try to cheat. Netanyahu will make his arguments with the same certitude as when he appeared in Washington before the Iraq war and talked about the benefits of attacking Iraq. He would have more credibility with me if he weren't so wrong then and if he had any credible alternative now. He has complaints but no solution. Indeed, he doesn't even have a peace plan for dealing with Israel's own ongoing festering problems with the Palestinians in the Israeli- occupied territories--a man with no plan and no alternative attacking the best option for America and Israel that we have seen. With this agreement in place, we will have more tools than we have ever had to inspect, to monitor, and enforce and more allies to make it work. If the United States walks away from this agreement, it is certain that the countries that helped us reach this point will walk away, too, starting with Russia and China. Without this perfect alignment of interests for punishing sanctions, they will fall apart, and we will lose this moment. Now, despite the huffing and puffing, military action is not viable. Talk to your constituents about what their appetite is for another military engagement in the Middle East, particularly, with the horrific costs and consequences that would follow. Military action would only strengthen the most reactionary evil forces in Iran to unleash the next escalation of global terror, which is frightening to comprehend. An attack will strengthen Iran's resolve to secure their own nuclear weapons, just as North Korea has done. And you cannot bomb away the knowledge that Iran has on nuclear technology. Ten, fifteen years is a lifetime in international affairs. Who could have imagined what has taken place in the last 15 years of our history? The world was a much different place in the year 2000. We ought to work to keep this coalition in support of the agreement alive and well and work to implement it and to enforce it, because we can snap back these sanctions if Iran crosses the line. The evidence is that the American public, and especially the majority of Jewish Americans, want to give diplomacy a chance. Congress should allow it. Reject the alternative for people who have no alternative. Recognize this as a major achievement, and work together to make diplomacy work. Let's seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I listened to my friend from Georgia talking about 5 months and we will be able to finally fix this. I actually have in my hand my speech from 1 year ago today speaking on the rule where we dodged the bullet again, and I said at that time I could pull out some of my other speeches. All this does is let people off the hook. Why didn't we fix it last fall or this spring? My good friend from Washington used to serve in the State legislature. His State legislature just passed a 15-cent gas tax increase, joining a list of six States, all Republican States, that have raised the gas tax this year. My friend from Georgia says he has never met anybody that doesn't really want to pay for their infrastructure. Well, he ought to take a hard look at his leadership. They have denied an opportunity to move forward with something championed by Ronald Reagan in 1982, when the gas tax, at his direction, under his leadership, was raised 125 percent. There is no excuse to keep torturing people at the State and local government level to stop enabling people to avoid their responsibility here. My good friend, Mr. DeFazio, is on the floor. In 2 months, he and Bill Shuster, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, could give us a 6-year bill, but Congress has to give them a number. Does anybody in their right mind think that we are going to go into 2016, with half the people in the other body running for President, holidays, treaties? Think again. It is a fool's errand. We ought to step up, follow Ronald Reagan's lead, replenish the gas tax, and get on with work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the chairman of the committee more. I personally think that it is time to stop pointing fingers. There is enough bipartisan blame to go around. We didn't quite do the job when the economy was in free fall. We would have, a number of us--I know the ranking member would have--written the Recovery Act differently, but the point is we are here now with the challenge to fund it. Six States, six Republican States have increased the gas tax already this year. I have got a proposal that is ready to go that could be passed in 2 weeks, and the committee could have the resources to actually fund the bill, but there could be other options. I know the ranking member has a barrel tax, a proposal to index the gas tax and bond against it. I don't care what it is that we do. I do care that we don't continue to stall. It was exactly a year ago today we were standing here on this moment saying: Don't spill this to the end of the year; we need to get on with it because we will be right back here a year from now. And we are. It is time to act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, America is still falling apart and falling behind. We are looking now to slide again past the deadline towards the end of the year. The problem is we are still pretending we can pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. It isn't that hard. It doesn't take 6 months to come up with a funding stream. I have legislation that is in the committee that could be acted on. We could follow the example of 20 States that have raised their user fees for transportation. We could get courage from the 6 Republican States that have raised their gas tax already this year. Just a few days ago, in the State of Washington, the Republican- controlled State Senate approved a 15-cent gas tax increase. We could follow the example of Ronald Reagan in 1982, when he urged this Congress to bite the bullet and raise the gas tax. He proposed and Congress followed through on a 125 percent increase in the gas tax. Somehow, my Republican friends are afraid to use the mechanism that is fast, that is accepted, that the people in the States--Republicans in the States--have the courage to undertake. Why is it that this year is going to be any different than last year? Why will my speech be any different? Is it going to be cheaper? Is it going to become less complex? Are we going to have a little more backbone? It is time for us to step up. I would hope that our Ways and Means Committee could take the next 2 weeks, follow regular order, and provide funding so that we could give the Transportation Committee the 2 months they need to fund it, and the job would be done.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day on Capitol Hill. The Iranian agreement has been signed. Hopefully, we will all have a chance to study it and think through the implications of this historic event, but the legislative clock is ticking down on another area. We have only 10 legislative days left this month before we face another transportation funding cliff. The expectation now is that there will be a 34th short-term transportation extension that we have faced since our last, meaningful 6-year reauthorization. People are scrambling for another short-term funding source to keep us going for the next few months that targets, presumably, $8 billion to $11 billion to get us through the end of the year. This is actually worse than no solution at all because it perpetuates the uncertainty, the crisis mentality, the inability of State and local governments that rely on this Federal partnership to supply approximately one-half of the capital expenditures for our surface transportation. This uncertainty comes at a time when our bridges, roads, and transit systems are all in serious areas of disrepair. We are desperately in need of bigger, longer-term projects. It is a myth that somehow we can't afford to take action. The public is paying now hundreds of dollars a year in damage to each of their vehicles, costs far in excess of a few cents a day for a gas tax increase. American commuters and businesses are suffering over $120 billion a year in costs related to congestion, costs directly related to inadequate infrastructure. People are tying themselves in knots when there is a simple, obvious solution. As pointed out in a delightful op-ed in The Washington Post on July 9, we should simply follow Ronald Reagan's example and fill up America's highway trust fund. They ask how the famously tax-cutting conservative President raised the Federal user fee--the gas tax--on motor fuels 125 percent. While he was concerned about general taxation, he was absolutely comfortable with having user fees cover specific costs like the fuel tax for aviation or inland waterway fees. He worked with Republicans in Congress, who demonstrated significant support for user fee increases. He then gave his Secretary of Transportation, Drew Lewis, free hand to lay the groundwork. Finally, when he decided to support a gas tax increase, his Department of Transportation swung into action, as did Ronald Reagan himself. He gave an eloquent speech November 29, 1982, on Thanksgiving Day, calling on Congress to come back into session and approve the gas tax increase. We have the opportunity for such leadership today. My proposed gas tax increase, H.R. 680, is supported by all the major interest groups: unions, the Chamber of Commerce, truckers, AAA, transit, local government, environmentalists, engineers, and contractors. The same approach has been used in 20 States since 2012 to raise transportation revenues. Six States have raised the gas tax already this year, six red Republican States. It is simple. My bill would provide the money necessary to actually pass a 6-year bill. It would be sustainable so we wouldn't be back in the same pickle in a year, 2 years, or 5 years. Finally, it is dedicated so people can count upon it to implement the steps necessary to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure. It is time to stop temporizing, and it is time to act. Filling the highway trust fund with borrowed money inadequate to do the job but enough to avoid responsibility is not a solution that we can be proud of, especially when America is ready and Ronald Reagan pointed the way.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, we will gather in Portland to mourn the passing and celebrate the life of Don Frisbee, who died June 26 at the age 91. Don led an extraordinary life, rising through the company ranks to become the chairman and CEO of PacifiCorp, then the major private utility in the Pacific Northwest. He was a bold and visionary leader of this important company. He was a board member of Fortune 500 companies like Weyerhaeuser and First Interstate Bank, now Wells Fargo. He was widely regarded as the most influential business leader in Oregon for 2 decades. Don's influence, though, extended beyond the business space. He was also on the board of two prestigious Northwest academic institutions, Whitman College in Walla Walla and Reed College in Portland, where he played a critical role in the development of that storied institution. He helped promote the growth of Portland State University, the Oregon Health Science University, and helped guide the Children's Institute. Later in his retirement, he worked for 5 years with his daughter-in- law, Denise Frisbee, on a program throughout the State of Oregon to connect people with their public schools. He cared deeply about the civic infrastructure, how to encourage and empower individuals to make a difference the way that he, himself, had. He was instrumental in the creation and growth of the Oregon Leadership Forum, which now for 30 years has gathered people from all across Oregon on an ongoing, yearlong program to develop leadership capacity and commitment to our State. From its founding to his board leadership, from participating in the very first year's programming, he was the driving force for this unique organization. The utility executive was passionate about Oregon's special places. He loved the out-of-doors and his own special place, his beloved ranch in Sisters, located in a spectacular setting in central Oregon. This veteran utility executive didn't think there was a conflict between sound, sustainable business practices and protecting the environment. During the last conversation I had with Don, he talked about how delighted he was with the Pope's encyclical on the environment and global warming. For all his many accomplishments, his family and friends were central in his life, even more so as the years passed. He lost his beloved wife, Emily, in 2003, after 56 years of marriage. Together, they built a family, a career, and a better community. A little at loose ends after losing Emily, later in life, he met, wooed, and wed a widow who was his neighbor, Betty Perkins. Together, they found extraordinary happiness. They had an amazing effect on everyone they met, whether on a cruise, on the 60th reunion of Don's class at the Harvard Business School, or just people on the street. At a time when most their age would be in rocking chairs, they were traveling the world, providing inspiration to all privileged to spend time around them. His was an extraordinary life well lived. Portland is often regarded as one of America's finest city, listed on all the best places. Over the last 50 years, no one made it a better place than Don Frisbee. Our hearts go out to Don's family; his wife, Betty; and to all of those who were touched by this extraordinary man.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I voted against H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act. There are provisions in this bill that I support, such as preventing the practice of ``fire borrowing,'' in which the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior pull funding from accounts meant for prevention of fire and use it to suppress fires. There are also provisions related to the Secure Rural Schools program that many of my colleagues in the Oregon delegation worked hard to include, and I appreciate their efforts. I opposed the legislation overall. It goes too far in rolling back important environmental protections, beyond what is necessary to have a balanced approach. I am hopeful as this legislation works its way through the process that it is toned down and focused.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. One of the most difficult and challenging situations any family faces is dealing with circumstances surrounding the end of life. Earlier this week, NPR ran a fascinating story on a little-known fact that physicians die differently than the rest of us. They are more comfortable. They are more likely to spend their final days surrounded by loved ones. They seldom die in an ICU or even in a hospital setting. That is because doctors understand what works and what doesn't. Doctors are very clear about their wishes, and they choose quality of life and concern for their families as well as their own well-being. I have been working in this area of end of life care for more than 6 years. The Ways and Means committee unanimously approved my legislation as part of the Affordable Care Act to provide greater support for families with that decisionmaking process. It did pass the committee unanimously as part of the Affordable Care Act, even despite the furor of the 2009 lie of the year about death panels, on the strength of some of the most compelling testimony that was delivered not by expert witnesses, but by Members of the committee. One of our Republican Members discussed how his mother didn't get the care that she needed at the end of her life. Another physician Member of the committee explained how he had these conversations repeatedly, but unfortunately they were often much later than they should have been. There wasn't adequate time for the family to prepare. Well, there has been a sea change on this issue in part because of rising public awareness. Support for our bipartisan legislation, the Personalize Your Care Act, which I have worked on for years now with Dr. Phil Roe, has made great strides forward. We have had advocates like Dr. Bill Frist, former Republican leader of the Senate, who has spoken eloquently and written forcefully about the need to help families under these trying conditions. The Reverend Billy Graham has written about how it is Christian responsibility to take this on for ourselves and spare our loved ones uncertainty. Dr. Atul Gawande recently published a brilliant work, ``Being Mortal,'' which quickly climbed to the top of the best seller list for The New York Times. The Institute of Medicine has put out a seminal, over 600-page report about dying in America that talked about the problems and opportunities to provide more choices and protect people's wishes. Yesterday was another important landmark where the administration published a proposed fee schedule for next year in which they have assigned an activity code with payment for advanced care planning. Now, of course, this is merely a proposal and CMS is still seeking comment, but it is a historic step forward for a decision that will be finalized this fall. It is yet another indication that we can and will do a better job of meeting the needs of America's families under the most difficult of circumstances. We will make sure Americans have all the information they need to make the right decisions for themselves and their family and then to assure that those decisions, whatever they may be, are honored and enforced. Medicare will pay for thousands of expensive medical procedures, and now, for the first time, the government is placing a value on this important conversation between a patient and their chosen medical professional. Now it is the job of the rest of us to do our part to spare our loved ones. Who will speak for us if we are unable to speak for ourselves, and what will they say?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last month Congress dealt with a trade package that centered on trade promotion authority; and those actions, while important, were really just the beginning of a very long process. Many important provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, are still unresolved. There is a meeting at the end of this month in Hawaii where the finance ministers of 12 countries come together in an attempt to resolve these final questions. As I pointed out in my last meeting with the President, while I think trade promotion authority is important and worthy of support, that support does not imply support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Indeed, because of the protections we built into the trade promotion authority, it sets an appropriately high standard for approval. Everybody in America will have several months to examine the proposal if an agreement is reached to see if it measures up before the treaty can even be voted on by Congress. I am hopeful that we can use this time to clarify and refine areas, for example, the investor state dispute process. While the United States' investor state protections for public health and consumers are stronger than for most countries and are separate from the foreign investor state models that are being used by the United States Chamber of Commerce to promote the interests of Big Tobacco to undercut efforts to discourage smoking, there is still room for us to improve and clarify the American model, and we should do so. Another important area deals with trade enforcement. Agreements that look good on paper, if they are not enforceable or enforced, are essentially meaningless. It is extremely important for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to enforcement. We are trying to help with legislation that I have introduced in the House that we have been able to get in part of the Senate package that would create a trade enforcement fund dedicated to help make sure agreements are enforced. Another step the administration could take immediately is to deal with disturbing actions in Peru that seem to undercut commitments that were made in the existing Peru free trade agreement dealing with illegal logging. It appears that Peru has backtracked on its commitments and that illegally harvested timber is finding its way into international markets and, indeed, into the United States. It would be a simple act for the administration to take that would demonstrate its commitment to strong enforcement by starting with Peru right now. Another area that I am working on deals with access to medicines. It appears that the TPP draft falls short on incentives for affordability and consumer protections and the trade promotion authority objective to ``ensure that trade agreements foster innovation and promote access to medicines.'' We need some work here. The May 10 agreement that was struck in 2007, which I was pleased to participate in, struck the right balance, creating incentives for innovation in pharmaceutical research and access to timely and affordable medicine for developing countries. This was achieved in part by requiring changes to provisions dealing with patent linkage where it looks like TPP is moving in the wrong direction. The TPP includes new provisions which, while not addressed in the May 10 agreement, are inconsistent with its spirit and its intent of ensuring timely access to affordable medicines in developing countries. For example, with biologic medicines, it appears the United States is seeking both patent linkage and 12 years of data exclusivity for all countries. The former would require a change in U.S. law, and the latter would prevent America from changing our laws to lower the exclusivity period, as has been proposed in the President's own budget proposal. The combination of these two would have enormous cost implications both at home and abroad. These are examples where I am working to make sure the final agreement measures up to the criteria we have established in the trade promotion authority. I urge the administration and my colleagues to be clear about our intent and our expectations in order for any final agreement to be worthy of broad support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Coming from the Pacific Northwest, waterproof matters. To be able to end this outmoded tariff code charging extremely high tariffs for no reason at all, I think, is an important step forward. I look forward to continuing work to fine-tune the tariff regimen that we have, but this is an important one for the people that I represent in the Northwest. I appreciate working with Mr. Reichert to be able to get this one across the finish line.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I rise in support of the effort today, and I would first acknowledge what my friend, the chairman of the committee, said a moment ago. At times, trust is in short supply in this institution for a whole host of reasons, but we were given ironclad assurances from the Speaker, from the President, from the chairman, from Senator Wyden, Senator Hatch, and Leader McConnell that TAA would come back to this floor to be voted on. I think it is important that that has in fact occurred. To adapt, respond, and grow a 21st century workforce, we need Trade Adjustment Assistance. What we have before us is an improvement over current law. It is not as good as what we had in 2009. I hope that we will be able to build on this and move forward. This program has helped more than 100,000 Americans, including 3,000 of my fellow Oregonians who received job training and financial support. There will continue to be winners and losers in the global economy, whether we have trade agreements with countries or not, like with pressures from China. It is important that we provide this for our workers. With our vote today, we do so. I lend my voice saluting Chairman Rangel for the work that he has done on AGOA. Having this package before us, including new economic opportunities for growing the economies of Africa, Haiti, and other places around the world is critically important. The 10-year extension is an example of how trade can improve these critical living standards. Finally, I have to acknowledge one little parochial interest in this bipartisan provision I worked on with Mr. Reichert that creates jobs in the Northwest and helps all outdoor enthusiasts. Right now, innovative footwear faces an unreasonable reality coming to our borders. Two identical-looking running shoes are imported. One must pay a significantly higher tariff for a single reason: they have a waterproof liner.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a flurry of activity regarding infrastructure funding in recent days. We had the first hearing in the Ways and Means Committee in the 55 months since my Republican friends took over to deal with transportation finance. There have been press conferences and proposals, and actually, a few other hearings have been scheduled. Despite all the furor, there is only one solution which is broadly supported, which is easy to implement, and which does the job. That solution is raising the gas tax. Now, we heard at the hearing on Ways and Means the three basic arguments that are offered against that: that it is not politically possible, that there is really no time to do this so we have to extend it to the end of the year, and that this would somehow be a burden on families. Actually, that is not true. The notion that it is not politically possible is not remotely the case. There are 20 States in the last 2\1/ 2\ years that have stepped up to raise their gas taxes. Ironically, information submitted by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association at our Ways and Means hearing pointed out that the legislators in those States who voted to increase the gas tax were reelected at an over 90 percent rate, and the legislators that voted for the gas tax in the States were reelected at a higher percentage than those who voted against it. If anybody needs more proof, just look at what has happened already this year where six very red States--Idaho; Utah; South Dakota; Iowa; Nebraska, overriding a Governor's veto; and Georgia--have all met their responsibilities raising the gas tax. It absolutely is something that can be done with a little political courage. The notion that somehow there is no time, that we have got to fuss around and it is going to take extensive hearings to come forward with the proposal--well, only if it is a complex, convoluted, untested, and controversial proposal. Raising the gas tax would take about 1 week's work, could be implemented quickly, and is the simplest and least expensive revenue measure to implement. What about this notion that somehow it is a burden on American families? Well, the proposal that I have introduced would cost less than 25 cents a day, and those families that would pay the increased user fees are suffering over $350 a year damage to their vehicles from poorly maintained roads. The American Society of Civil Engineers suggests that that cost per family is going to be over a $1,000 a year by 2020. And the American public is paying by being stuck in traffic, in congestion, costing $120 billion a year. It costs money to them-- money that could have been used for more productive purposes--and time away from their families. Imagine if we just came back from our July recess and dedicated the week of July 13 to solving the infrastructure crisis in this country where America is falling apart and falling behind. The people who were experts at the hearing that weren't heard from could have answered all those questions. Where else are we going to find something that is broadly supported by business and labor, by truckers and AAA, bicyclist, engineers, environmentalists, local governments? We would have all of those people before us supporting a solution to this important challenge. I can't think of any other issue that would bring all those people together and support congressional action. We could stop the slide of America falling apart and falling behind. We could put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs all across America while we strengthen our communities, make them more livable, and provide an economic boost for the future. Why don't we do that? Why can't we take ``yes'' for an answer, deal with the broadest coalition of support for any major issue, and have another victory like we did with the SGR? We can do it, and it is hard to think of something that would be more important.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I find this whole conversation somewhat surreal because, in my community in Portland, Oregon, the city is unveiling a new climate action plan to reduce local carbon emissions even more. We are already below 1999 levels on a per capita basis, but our community has committed, in going forward, to a clean energy future in order to do our part. It is jarring that, at the same time, we would consider on the floor of the House rolling back the modest, balanced approach that the administration has undertaken with the carbon rule--a carbon rule that is not yet finalized, a carbon rule that is dedicated to working with local States to try and fine-tune it to make sure that it works right and with more public input. Nonetheless, even though it is a little late in coming, the United States must step up. We have a major responsibility as we are the largest contributor to carbon pollution in the world. We are number two now behind China. We have a responsibility to do our part, but we have a responsibility to do our part not just in terms of global leadership and in trying to change this tremendously destructive trajectory we are on with carbon pollution--as we will, no doubt, hear from the Pope in 3 months in this Chamber--but it is part of what is going to happen with other countries in the world. If the richest, most powerful nation in the world can't step up to do its part, how can we expect to exert global leadership and prevent catastrophic events elsewhere? The notion that somehow this is going to be an economic catastrophe is balderdash. The reason the coal industry is in trouble is that coal is dirty, inefficient, and it is more expensive than natural gas. It is not a foundation for our energy future. Being able to move to a low carbon future is a bedrock for economic prosperity in the future.