Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I respect my friend from Texas. I appreciate his willingness to work with me and his notion of putting more resources in forecasting, but that is not the issue here. What we need to be doing is having a robust effort at NOAA to be able to deal comprehensively with climate, being able to deal with how we help communities be more resilient, how we are able to deal with the forces that are down upon us to help the scientific bases to be able to maybe even encourage this Congress to step up and do its job. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is our ability to provide reliable, long-term drought forecasts, projections of regional drought indicators, and issues dealing with the prediction of what happens in terms of flood research and performance of climate and weather models. This is not simply a matter of predicting next week's weather. This is dealing with long-term consequences and helping communities deal with the impact of climate change and being able to understand it better. Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely self-imposed constraint from my Republican friends. They have passed hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts out of committee. There is more than adequate money. Because the budget is so hopelessly inadequate, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership on this, and I appreciate my good friend from Pennsylvania in his eloquence and his tireless championship in this area. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have a broken system that does not meet the needs of people with mental illness, and it places an undue burden on law enforcement. His words about people having a right to be well really resonates with me because we have seen in all of our communities situations that escalate because they don't have the proper response--we don't have the proper training; we don't have the proper resources--where people get worse. It is not just that it costs more money; it is the pain to the individuals, to their families, and, ultimately, since virtually all of these people are released but are released in a more damaged situation, they are worse. They are a greater risk to themselves and society, and the cycle continues. There is no doubt in my mind that, if we were able to properly account for the costs and consequences of the current nonsystem that there would be far more resources saved in treating them humanely and effectively, giving the police and the community the resources they need that will more than pay for itself. This is an important step for the Federal Government to be a better partner. I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership. I appreciate my friend Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, and I am looking forward to working with him on other items. I respectfully request that our colleagues not just support this, but take it to heart because we can make a difference on so many different levels.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would strongly urge my colleagues to talk to treatment professionals in their communities. My concern is that we don't have as much vigorous oversight for things that are much more highly addictive--we see them more abused--and that this extra overlay for something that is less dangerous and can in fact be useful for treatment, I think, is an area that deserves oversight. I respect my friends in terms of their opinions, but I would urge them to have the conversations I have had with the people who are getting wrapped around the axle with the DEA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership on this issue. Madam Chairman, as a practical matter, industrial hemp is not marijuana. With less than 0.3 percent THC, it is not a drug. As a practical matter, it is not hard to distinguish it, and, in fact, it is sort of a myth that somehow people will use industrial hemp to disguise the cultivation of marijuana. They don't want that. It cross- contaminates. It makes it a less effective product. We have a situation where the rest of the world deals with industrial hemp, where there are countless products available to purchase today, it is just that Kentucky farmers or Oregon farmers can't produce it. Last year the House overwhelmingly passed this amendment. We are starting down a path towards rationalization. Twenty-three States have removed the barriers to production of industrial hemp. The Federal Government should get out of the way. Congress should adopt this amendment and allow it to proceed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a quiet revolution taking place across America to reform and modernize our marijuana laws. For over half a century, the official position has been one of prohibition, of incarceration, of obfuscation, and willful ignorance; yet almost 20 million Americans use marijuana every month. A majority of the public now thinks that that should be legal, and an even larger majority thinks that, whatever their personal opinion about marijuana is, that the Federal Government should not interfere with what the States do, just like how we regulate alcohol. In the vanguard of the reform movement has been medical marijuana since 1996, when California was the first State to legalize it. It has been followed now where almost three-quarters of the States provide some form of access to medical marijuana, and most of those decisions were made by a vote of the people. Well over 200 million Americans live where they have access to medical marijuana. There have been many positive benefits achieved for our veterans, who suffer from a wide range of medical problems, many of which stem from their years of service: chronic pain, PTSD, controlling the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, or dealing with violent nausea as a result of chemotherapy; yet our veterans are discriminated against because, even in States where it is legal, their VA doctors are discouraged from working with them to see if medical marijuana is right for them or if it is not. I am pleased to see some change taking place in Congress. We almost passed my amendment last month which would have given veterans fair treatment, enabling their primary doctor to consult with them. Just this last week in the Senate, there was approved in committee essentially the same amendment, and it is on its way to the Senate floor to give equal rights to veterans for medical marijuana. This is the latest step in the evolution that we have seen now where four States and the District of Columbia have declared adult use legal, and we are seeing further progress at the local level. The tide is building. We are turning away from a failed program of prohibiting; arresting; and, in some cases, incarcerating, while denying the science. We as a Nation are turning to approaches that are more honest and workable, that tax and regulate to allow for important research and public education that will allow people to make informed choices about the use of these substances or not. We are already seeing the social, economic, and law enforcement advantages in this shift at the State level, and we should capitalize on this movement at the national level as well. It is exciting to see a bipartisan group of legislators in a sea of legislative dysfunction coming together to promote bringing this country into the 21st century in terms of marijuana policies, doing it right. This week, during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, we are likely to see numerous amendments dealing with research, hemp, medical marijuana, cultivation, enforcement, and respecting States' laws. This is an exciting and encouraging development to be able to make the Federal Government a full partner with the evolution that is taking place on the State and local level. I urge my colleagues to vote in such a way that respects the will of the people and the rights of States to forge these new policies.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr Chair, I voted for H.R. 2262, the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (SPACE) Act of 2015 to promote continued American competitiveness and ingenuity in space exploration. I agree with many of my fellow Democrats that as this industry matures, we should be regularly revisiting the issue of the ``learning period,'' and its related Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations regarding spacecraft, as well as rules relating to indemnification. This is why I supported the Edwards amendment to the SPACE Act to shorten the extension of these provisions to five and four years, rather than continuing them through 2025. Though that amendment failed, I voted to support the underlying bill because it is important to encourage growth in this industry, considering the end of NASA's space shuttle program in July 2011, and the rapid development of this industry internationally. As is now happening with our commercial drone industry, which can help us with everything from enforcing environmental protections to improving worker safety, a failure to move beyond outmoded federal regulations in the U.S. will mean other countries progress and we're left behind. A failure to reach agreement on these critical areas of emerging technology and the role of the federal government will undercut American's ability to compete and lead in the 21st century. Research, innovation and investments are happening in the area across the globe. We must strike the right balance, but Congress ought not play a role by adding complexity and delay.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, I rise today to recognize the month of May as Stroke Awareness Month. Stroke, an attack in which blood flow and oxygen to the brain are blocked, is the leading cause of long-term disability in the United States. Each year, more than 795,000 Americans suffer from stroke, and in my own home state of Oregon those numbers are above the national average. The health care expenses, including associated medications and missed days of work, cost the United States an estimated $34 billion each year. The human costs, however, are more devastating. In the United States alone, an annual average of 130,000 of those who have had a stroke die. Even those who survive often experience a significant decrease in their quality of life. Over two-thirds of survivors must live with sometimes overwhelming long-term consequences, such as paralysis, motor activity, speech, and the ability to understand speech. Many of those survivors and their families also face financial repercussions. Some must even deplete their savings and sell their assets just to cover the costs associated with post-stroke care. As part of Stroke Awareness Month, we must ensure our constituents understand that stroke is treatable and preventable, as long as citizens arm themselves with the proper diagnostic tools and health information. Common stroke symptoms include: crushing chest pain; sudden weakness of the face, arm, or leg; sudden confusion; trouble speaking or understanding speech; sudden trouble walking or seeing; loss of balance; and sudden, severe headache. The ability to recognize these symptoms and seek medical attention immediately is critical to surviving a stroke and minimizing long-term disability. Stroke affects people of all ages, but several underlying factors that put individuals at higher risk include unhealthy diets, tobacco use, and physical inactivity. Understanding the risks involved with certain lifestyle choices and making healthier choices can often help reduce a person's risk of stroke. The federal government needs to be a better partner with stroke survivors, and it is the aim of our Congressional Neuroscience Caucus to do just that. We must find ways to increase the effectiveness of the federal investment in developing new treatments. In addition, we have an obligation to work with survivors and their families to make the path to recovery less arduous. Options we should consider include improving access to post-stroke therapy and finding ways to reduce the financial impact on survivors and their families. One important first step is recognize May as Stroke Awareness month in order to continue to educate Americans about stroke symptoms, prevention, and treatments.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act, a bill that would bring much needed resources to clean up toxic pollution in the Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest. The River and its tributaries provide significant ecological and economic benefits to the Pacific Northwest and the entire United States. Historically, the Columbia and its tributaries have constituted the largest salmon-producing river system in the world, with annual returns peaking at 16 million fish. The Columbia River was designated an Estuary of National Significance in 1995 and a Large Aquatic Ecosystem (LAE) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006. Yet it remains the only LAE to receive zero Congressional funding pursuant to this designation--despite a growing problem of toxic contamination throughout the River Basin. Toxic contaminants are present throughout the Columbia River Basin and are harmful to public health and ecosystem health. These contaminants make their way into fish tissues, which when consumed can be damaging to human health. Some of these toxics are known to increase cancer risks and have been linked with neurological, developmental and reproductive problems, including birth defects and learning disabilities. This concern is particularly pressing for tribal populations, who rely on local fish as a dietary and cultural staple and consume large quantities of resident fish. In wildlife, contaminants increase mortality and disease susceptibility and impair reproduction and the ability of the fish to avoid predators. In 2013, the States of Oregon and Washington issued fish advisories warning the public to protect itself against mercury and PCB contamination by limiting consumption of resident fish species living in the 150 mile stretch of river between Bonneville and McNary Dams. This bill authorizes the EPA to establish a voluntary, competitive Columbia River Basin grants program to support projects aimed at reducing pollution, cleaning up contaminated sites, improving water quality, monitoring the Basin, and promoting citizen engagement. Eligible entities may include States, tribal and local governments, nonprofits, and private landowners. The legislation authorizes $50 million per year for five years for this effort, which is estimated to create between 700 and 1,000 family wage jobs per year in the region. The Columbia River is the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest, but it has become dangerously polluted. It is time to clean up the Columbia River and improve water quality and river health for generations to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the near hysteria over trade promotion authority and the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership, the so-called TPP, is unfortunate because it is so misguided. The stakes are too high to get it wrong, and the negative arguments are unfortunate because they are so wrong. Being against TPP, which has yet to be finished, is premature, at best. Being against the TPA is misguided because those provisions guarantee people will actually know the details and have stronger tools to evaluate whether it is worthy of support. The trade agenda and the role of America in the global economy has been front and center in Congress over the last few weeks, and well it should be. The United States has an opportunity to make further inroads in 95 percent of the markets that are outside our borders and to be able to gain that access under more favorable terms. Businesses large and small that want to sell their products overseas run into much more difficult barriers, procedures, and costs than people who sell their goods to America, which has one of the most open markets in the world. In Oregon, there are two competing narratives: those who are opposed to further competition for American goods in American markets, fearing a loss of business and jobs; and those who see significant opportunity selling goods and services abroad, creating more family-wage jobs at home. The people I talk to in Oregon who are in business overwhelmingly support that access. They feel they have far more to gain than they have to lose, selling more wine, bicycles, agricultural products, and small tools. They think they can compete overseas, creating family-wage jobs at home, if that playing field is level. There are others who are deeply concerned that this perceived leveling of the playing field will not be achieved. They are concerned about a lack of labor and environmental standards overseas. Having spent time with the people who are negotiating the agreements, having reviewed documents myself, and working to reflect Oregon values and interests, these agreements, I am confident, hold promise for Oregon. But it is too soon to tell for sure because the agreement is still being negotiated, and people like me are still trying to influence it to make it stronger still. For instance, I have provisions I am working on in both the House and the Senate to provide an enforcement mechanism. As the agreement potentially enters its final stages, where there are some of the more difficult concessions with decisions yet to be made, the United States and other countries are reluctant to show their full hand while things are in flux. That is why the trade promotion authority that is working its way through the Senate--and may be in front of the House early in June--is so important. This trade promotion authority is a significant enhancement over any similar provision in the past. It guarantees that the entire country-- not just Congress--will be able to examine all of the provisions 2 months before the President even signs the agreement and for months after that, before Congress votes. The authority also sets out provisions that speak to the concerns I have heard about for years about the weaknesses in NAFTA, not having enforceable, strong provisions for environment and labor. That is why I thought it was important to vote to establish these rules which were significantly strengthened and made more transparent as a result of the tremendous efforts on behalf of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, in the Senate. If an agreement is reached under these new rules, we will have the strongest standards ever to evaluate a trade agreement, and everyone in America will be able to evaluate for themselves, not conjure up some sort of speculation. They will have months to do what I am going to do: see if this agreement is in the best interest of the people in Oregon who I represent. If it is, then they, like I, will support it. If it is not, then I will do, as I have sometimes done in the past, and vote ``no'' on things I don't think measure up. The time to draw the lines in the sand ``yes'' or ``no'' is after an agreement is reached, not before. And thanks to the new trade promotion authority, everyone will have an opportunity to make that judgment for themselves well in advance of any decision that Congress makes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I was listening to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas, who is managing the bill for our Republican friends, and I was struck for a moment when he talked about the disadvantage vis-a-vis China, how--in a few years--we are going to slip behind China in R&D development. He talked about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be made available if we were able to redouble our efforts in research and development and the concerns about the overall slippage of the United States into the middle of the pack when it comes to research. I was struck by those words. For a moment, I thought he was talking about the United States infrastructure because we don't have to wait for 3 or 4 or 5 years to slip behind China; we are already being overshown by their efforts. We are investing less than 2 percent of our gross domestic product in infrastructure; the Chinese are investing 8 percent or more. The United States once had the finest infrastructure in the world-- not anymore. Those international ratings that my good friend from Texas talked about are very much the case for our infrastructure. We have dropped from 1st to 5th to 16th to 27th. I want to know where the alarm for my Republican friends is about our falling behind while America falls apart. We are going to pass before the year is out the research and development credit. I hope we do it the right way, but we will do it. What we haven't done in the 55 months since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives is we have not had a single hearing on how we are going to finance our crumbling infrastructure-- not one. In the meantime, we are told that this is off the table, that the gas tax is off the table. We are going to do some smoke and mirrors or something. We just passed the 33rd short-term extension of the surface transportation bill. What country became great in having built its infrastructure 9 months at a time? While my Republican friends refuse to even consider the gas tax that Ronald Reagan championed--in fact, urged and Congress more than doubled under his watch--in the last 6 months, we have had Georgia, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Iowa all raise their gas taxes, hoping that the Federal Government will meet its obligations and be a partner in rebuilding and in renewing America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Where is the sense of urgency for the cost to families who are having $300 a year or more in damage to their cars? The fact that we are not being able to move product because we are stuck in traffic? Then our ports, our airports, our roads, our rail--we just had an example of its instability--where is the urgency? I would, respectfully, suggest that we reject this wrongheaded approach and deal with real tax reform and the R&D tax credit. But in the meantime, maybe the Ways and Means Committee could find a week that we could spend working together to rebuild and renew America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, after a rocky start this Congress, we have seen some signs of progress. Earlier this session, the House leadership allowed the process to work when all Democrats joined many Republicans to rescue Homeland Security from the potential disastrous shutdown by cutting off funds. Later, a decade-long struggle on the Medicare sustainable growth rate, the so-called doc fix, moved forward. An impasse that had lasted for years was broken, and the solution was overwhelmingly approved by Members of both parties. Well, now, we are facing yet another impasse, one that has haunted us far longer than a decade, transportation funding. The authority to spend for surface transportation programs expires May 31. Just as I predicted last summer, the stopgap approach that we approved then would put us right back in the same spot this spring, cutting badly needed transportation projects this summer and the jobs that go with them. America is falling apart and falling behind in part because you cannot pay for 2015 transportation needs with 1993 dollars, which was the last time we raised the gas tax. Thirty-two short-term funding extensions are evidence of a bipartisan failure for these 22 years to deal with the gas tax, and there is no meaningful alternative for transportation resources on the horizon. Ironically, the solution is clear, thoroughly studied and broadly supported: raise the gas tax for the first time since 1993. The House Republican leadership doesn't have to do anything extraordinary, just allow the Ways and Means Committee to follow regular order. Let's listen to the experts; invite the stakeholders that build, maintain, and use our transportation system. Listen to the heads of the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, leaders in transit, truckers, AAA, bicyclists, all of whom agree with President Eisenhower, who used the gas tax to start the highway trust fund and the interstate freeway system, and President Ronald Reagan, who increased gas tax a nickel, more than doubling it in 1992. In fact, we can invite legislators from today. Six red Republican States have raised the gas tax already this year: Nebraska, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Utah, and South Dakota. State Senator Michael Vehle comes to mind. The key is to have real hearings, like Congress used to conduct. Have a full week devoted to solving the transportation funding crisis. Bring in the witnesses, grill them, test their thoughts and theories, discuss real solutions, not gimmicks or ideologically driven fantasies. Let's have serious work sessions and a markup. President Obama could help by establishing a marker that he will approve no further extensions past September 31. It will not be less complex, expensive, or easier politically in 2016, 2017, or 2018. If this slides until 2016, which is the approach evidently favored by the Republican leadership, we will be struggling with this in the next Congress and the next administration. This does not have to be an exercise in futility. We are seeing the leadership exhibited all across the country with 20 States that have stepped up, and as I mentioned, six red States already this year. Now is the time for Congress to do its job. In fact, if we do our job, taking the solution that has been thoroughly vetted, studied, and widely supported by interest groups across the political spectrum, we are going to be able to solve this funding conundrum. We will be able to rebuild and renew America, putting hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs, while Congress helps make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. I strongly urge that the House reject the approach that would simply dodge this problem for 2 more months, then slide to the end of the year and beyond. We should call the question now, establish the parameters. This is something that is long overdue, that all of us can embrace, and America will be the better for it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to just one aspect on the floor of this rule. My colleague from Washington made a statement that we are dealing with a 2-month extension because we found some extra money to let it last longer. No, the reason that we are having a 2-month extension is because we have not been able to resolve this problem. I made the remarks on the floor of the House last summer that extending it to May is not going to get us anyplace, and we would be right back in the same spot. I could dust off the same speech. What is happening is that you have a little tiny bit of give, but it doesn't mean that we have enough money and that there aren't consequences. There are States across the country, because of the uncertainty of the Republican funding approach, that are already cutting back on construction projects this summer. This will be the 33rd short-term funding extension. It is a symbol of the failure of my Republican colleagues to do anything in the 55 months that they have been in charge to deal with transportation funding. They have never even had a hearing on transportation finance. Now, I will say that over the last 22 years there have been some bipartisan failures to step up to it. Ironically, the solution is clear, thoroughly studied, and broadly supported: raise the gas tax for the first time since 1993. The Republican leadership doesn't have to do anything extraordinary, just allow the Committee on Ways and Means to follow regular order. Have some serious committee hearings. Listen to the experts. Invite in the stakeholders that build, that maintain, and use our transportation system. Let's have at the witness dais heads of the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--who agree we should raise the gas tax--the head of transit, the American Trucking Association, AAA, bicyclists. They could refer back to great Republican leaders of the past. Dwight Eisenhower established the gas tax to fund the Interstate Highway System. Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, called Congress back in November of 1982 to more than double the gas tax, which Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. In fact, my Republican friends could involve Republican leaders today. Six Republican States have raised the gas tax already this year: Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, Georgia.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Not exactly liberal bastions. This is something that we can and should do. Let's step up, solve this problem, avoid this continual uncertainty for people around the country. They deserve better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on this matter. He hit it right on the nail. We are in a situation, I am sad to say, having listened to my colleague a moment ago; the States will still have to worry. Two months doesn't give them a straight shot at a construction season, and there is still uncertainty. I could have dusted off the speech I gave last summer where I said we would be right back here in the same spot, with uncertainty around the country; and the local governments, the State governments, the contractors don't deserve that. But it is not the problem of the T and I Committee, as much as Ways and Means. You can't craft a bill unless you know how much money you have got to spend. I am embarrassed as a member of that committee that, in the 55 months my Republican colleagues have been in charge, we have not had a single hearing on transportation finance. We hear certain things are off the table or not acceptable. It is interesting, we haven't raised the gas tax in 22 years, but six States--six red States--have raised the gas tax already this year. Utah, Idaho, Georgia, South Dakota--these are not flaming bastions of liberalism. These are people who looked at the problem and decided they needed to step up, and they stepped up not to take the place of the Federal responsibility, but in anticipation that at some point, the Federal Government would meet its obligation for almost half of the major construction projects. I would respectfully request that we dive in and see what we can do over the course of the next couple of months, but that the Ways and Means Committee spend one week listening to the men and women who build, operate, and use our Nation's infrastructure, spend a week, look at the items, consider maybe what Ronald Reagan thought was a good idea in 1982: raise the gas tax. We can pass that bill out of committee in 1 week, and you can have the next couple of months to give America the bill it needs to rebuild and renew this great country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as was referenced on the floor of the House, in 4 legislative days, funding expires for transportation. I could actually give my speech from last summer that predicted we would be exactly in this spot--nothing changed, more delay. There are three things that we can do to fix it: Number one, the President ought to issue an absolute deadline that he will not sign any extension that passes September 30; 4\1/2\ months is enough time for Congress to do its work. Second, the Ways and Means Committee should get down to work with a series of hearings involving the people who actually do this out in the real world--contractors, business, unions, local governments. For the first time in 55 months, let's have those hearings. And finally, let's have action on legislation that I have introduced, a gas tax increase for the first time in 22 years, similar to what has happened in Georgia, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota--Republican red States. If they can step up and take their responsibility, maybe Congress can do that in the next 4\1/2\ months.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The measure we are debating today is much better, through the hard work of Senators Corker and Cardin, and I appreciate their efforts to deescalate the conversation. I fear it is the wrong message at the wrong time. There are no good alternatives to letting negotiators prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Now, Congress seldom advances diplomacy. Usually, we politicize issues, playing to the bleachers. Our judgment is often suspect: the record from ignoring the lead up to World War II; misjudgments on Vietnam; the reckless rush into the war in Iraq; even maintaining a foolish policy regarding Cuba, until the President exercised leadership lately. There is no good reason to interfere now with what the P5+1 have done, making unprecedented progress--progress we wouldn't have imagined 2 or 3 years ago. They did so using a unified force with these six countries, using the tools of the sanctions that we could not have imposed unilaterally. And we don't want to lose the leverage of those allies. Now, I am painfully aware of the issues with Iran. It is troubling, a number of their activities. It is also ironic that our interests are aligned in some areas. And I will never forget on 9/11 there were demonstrations of support for America in Tehran. The Iranian people actually like Americans, their leaders do not--and that is why working forward to make this historic agreement a reality could be an important pivot point for the troubled relationships between our countries. Make no mistake, there are hard-liners in Iran, just as there are hard-liners in the United States, who want to blow this agreement up. But I have been impressed, taking advantage of offers from the White House for numerous briefings on this issue, reviewing the materials, that we have made tremendous progress. We shouldn't complicate it. As my friends have referenced here, there is no good alternative to a negotiated agreement with Iran. It is the only way we can prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. A reckless rush to war, which some people hinted at, others would welcome, would not stop their ultimate acquisition of nuclear weapons. It is very likely to accelerate it. And to imagine going back into that area, fighting a country with a population that is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined--over a huge area--would be devastating. Let's stay the course. Let's be patient. Let's try to constrain congressional interference.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I support the right for women to make their own personal health care decisions and oppose H.R. 36, the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' I will vote against this legislation because it imposes the will of an intolerant minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is a deliberate attack on women and it's wrong. The new language in H.R. 36 is bad for women's health. It would require adult women who have been raped to receive potentially unwanted medical treatment and proof of counseling before receiving an abortion. This is an attempt to shame and stigmatize rape victims, while doing nothing to provide necessary mental and physical health services to women in need. While it is couched in the language of protecting unborn fetuses from pain, this legislation is nothing more than a cruel disregard for personal circumstances of women's lives.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we are dealing with the defense authorization legislation, we should step back and look at the big picture. Are we taking tough stands dealing with escalating personnel costs, procurement issues, excess facilities? Are we honoring the responsibility of the military to clean up after itself? One of the best examples is a failure to deal with the rightsizing of our military facilities. It is no secret that our nuclear triad, which includes our land-based missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombers, are wildly in excess of anything we need for deterrence. The Pentagon's 2013 report on nuclear employment strategy declared that ``we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrence while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty.'' Other experts, including a commission chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright, suggest we could go even lower without jeopardizing security. Yet we are on a trajectory to spend over a trillion dollars in the decades to come on weapons that are largely irrelevant to the challenges of today: ISIS, 9/11-type attacks, military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russian aggression in the Ukraine. We should be addressing what is an appropriate level for the nuclear deterrence. But until we face up to the fact that we ought to at least know what we are getting into, one simple step would have been to tell Congress what the longer term costs are going to be. In the last legislation, I had an amendment that was successfully approved to require the CBO to publish every 2 years a 10-year cost estimate of our nuclear modernization. It has already proven extremely valuable to provide a set of numbers we can compare to the Pentagon's estimates. Unfortunately, more and more of these expenses are being pushed outside the 10-year window. I had an amendment that would have at least required our being able to have a 25-year cost of modernization, an estimate the Pentagon said they can do and one that we already have for the National Nuclear Security Administration. One other area that was equally puzzling was the failure to allow a bipartisan, fully offset amendment to upgrade our Air National Guard F- 15s. The radar they are using dates to the 1970s. In fact, it went out of production 30 years ago. We had a simple, bipartisan, fully offset amendment to allow the Air Guard to at least get 10 planes modernized on an ongoing basis. It is frustrating. We are failing to tackle the big issues. We are not even given an opportunity to guarantee Congress knows what the longer term costs are, and we are shortchanging small investments that would make a big difference for our Air National Guard. I hope we are going to have an opportunity as the legislation moves forward for Congress to do a better job balancing our priorities, meeting the needs of our men and women in uniform, and protecting our long-term budget.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would move the funding authority for the Navy's next submarine--the Ohio class replacement--out of the so-called national sea-based deterrence fund and put it back where it belongs, in the Navy's shipbuilding budget. The amendment would not reduce funding for this project. It is a vote, however, for sound budget process because the sea-based deterrence fund is no different than using any other sleight of hand oversea contingency operations, some sort of slush fund, to get around the cost caps for other programs. This fund was created in the last defense authorization because the Navy could not afford to simultaneously build back up a 300-plus surface fleet and procure the 12 Ohio class replacement nuclear submarines. The problem with the deterrence fund is that it doesn't solve how we pay for all of this. It simply would shift that burden onto the Pentagon in some magic way. That is why the appropriators refused to put money into the account after it was authorized. It doesn't take an accountant to understand, if you buy the same amount of goods but charge them on two different credit cards, your debt will be the same amount. This fund will only lead to increased costs for the program and decrease transparency stability for manufacturers. The increased costs come from untethering the program from the Navy's shipbuilding budget, thereby reducing scrutiny and discipline, the tradeoffs that we expect. Shipbuilders will face increased uncertainty because no one has yet answered the question about where that funding will come from, setting them up for dramatic cuts once reality catches up with the budgetary gimmick. I ask my colleagues if this is, in fact, a national priority, then make the case to amend the restrictions. Find the room to pay for the program through the traditional means. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?