Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Who has the right to close?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is by no stretch of the imagination a vote on whether or not one believes in nuclear deterrence. The United States has in its possession now and will continue to have far more nuclear firepower than is necessary to deter anybody in the world. We have not only the submarine-based weapons, we have 450 land- based missiles, and we have the bomber fleet. It has been acknowledged repeatedly by studies at the Pentagon that we can effectively reduce the amount of nuclear armaments we have by a third or more without jeopardizing our deterrence, our ability to destroy any country in the world many times over. The question is: How do we pay for what we have and where we are going? An amendment that I had, which was not ruled in order, I am sad to say, would have requested a CBO study for what our costs are over the course of the next 25 years. Most estimates are that we are in a pattern of spending $1 trillion or more over the course of these 30 years. That is big money, no matter how you cut it. We are in the process of hollowing out our military. We have got problems in terms of compensation and benefit. We have a military that has been strained, stretched, and damaged by the ill-advised adventure in Iraq. Now, we are embarking upon, without doing the tough decisionmaking about setting priorities, we are launching down a road here that would allow us to bypass the budgetary process and make appropriate tradeoffs, whether it is within the Department of Defense overall, but I would argue that it ought to be within the Navy budget. My amendment wouldn't stop going forward. The money involved would go into submarine construction, but it would inject a little bit of discipline here. Now, this doesn't tell us where the money is going to come from for the project and their account, this sleight of hand, doesn't make it easier to finance, but it makes it harder to track, and it eliminates the discipline, as I say, by forcing the Navy and then the Pentagon to be able to deal with it openly, honestly, and know where we are at. There is no reason to go down this path. I hope some day we have a spirited debate on the floor of the House about how much deterrence is enough. Are the Pentagon experts right that we can reduce it? Or do we need to go down a path spending $1 trillion over the course of the next 30 years? The truth is we are going to have to face some very difficult budgetary decisions. This proposal doesn't help us do that. It helps us to evade it. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I do appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island for setting the context here. Mr. Chairman, we ought to be concerned about what is going on. My understanding is that they found out about the widespread cheating among the missileers because they were investigating the drug abuse. There are things that ought to concern us, not something that to this point is, as they just testified, a proposal on behalf of the administration, but, rather, the notion that somehow any action to reduce responsiveness is contrary to longstanding policy and is deeply harmful to national security and strategic stability in a crisis. There may well come a time when we are able to make some changes that would remove a little bit of the hair trigger. I don't think that is something that we should prejudge. In the meantime, if people care about these missiles, they ought to make sure that they are managed in an effective fashion, that we take care of the longstanding abuses, and that we deal with the point that I made a moment ago: when we are launching on a $1 trillion program over the next three decades, we ought to find out how much we need and how we are going to pay for it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the clock ticks down, May 31--18 calendar days and 6 legislative days away--is the expiration of the latest of now 24 short-term extensions that are testimony to Congress' inability to face up to America's transportation challenges. As I predicted last summer, States around the country are now cutting back on their summer construction projects because Congress has not met its responsibility for the transportation partnership. Why is it that five States have been able to raise the gas tax this year, 19 States have raised transportation revenues in the previous 2 years, and we in Congress are confused and in disarray? We have to think of elaborate mechanisms to enact short-term patches and not give America the certainty of a big, bold 6-year transportation reauthorization the country needs. Maybe it is because we never listened to the strong voices with real experience about those needs. It is past time to have that broad perspective. Maybe if we had 2 days of honest-to-goodness hearings like legislative bodies do in the States, like we used to do in Congress, it wouldn't be so hard. What if we invited Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, and Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber, who don't usually agree on much of anything, but do on this? Or, former Kansas Governor Bill Graves, who is not just president of the American Trucking Associations but was a Republican Governor who raised the gas tax not once, but twice. What if we invited former Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Schwarzenegger, and former Governor Ed Rendell? What if we brought in the head of American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Dr. Pete Ruane? The electrical contractors are in town this week. They could tell us. I have got a great constituent, Ted Aadland, who used to be chair of AGC. There are countless people, government leaders, and legislative leaders who have stepped up and met their responsibility, all expecting that Congress would do its part. These experts, leaders, and politicians know what the problem is. They fashion solutions. And they are willing to give the politicians in Congress cover to do something that appears hard only in the abstract. There is broad consensus for the same solution that was advocated by Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 raised the gas tax. Or, Dwight Eisenhower, who helped establish the gas tax for the modern transportation system. It is hard only because we don't do our job. The leaders who say the gas tax is off the table never explained why it is off the table and, more important, have not allowed the experts and advocates from around the country to come and make the case. Republicans took control 55 months ago, and we have not had a single hearing on transportation finance before the Ways and Means Committee. Not one hearing. Maybe if the Ways and Means Committee would do its job, not with a carefully scripted, selected couple of witnesses that reaffirm somebody's biases, but the people who actually head the organizations that do this work, that understand the need, that have helped States around the country meet their responsibilities, maybe we could act. I suspect after 2 full days of hearings, the American public and the rest of Congress would get the message. It doesn't have to be this hard. Show some courage, show some vision, show some action. Maybe then we won't have a 25th short-term extension. What country became great building its infrastructure 9 months at a time? Maybe we could finally enact a 6-year robust reauthorization that would solve this problem for the current administration and the next and put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family wage jobs. Let's end this hopeless charade that somehow it is too hard for Congress to do what happens in New Hampshire, South Dakota, Georgia, Wyoming, Utah, and Iowa. Let's get a grip, people, and do our job and listen to the experts. No more evasion, gimmicks, and short-term extensions. Raise the gas tax, put those hundreds of thousands of people to work rebuilding and renewing America. Make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 2028, the FY16 Energy and Water Appropriations Act and H.R. 2029, the FY16 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, because they failed to provide funding for programs that help our veterans, protect the environment, and grow a clean energy economy. We should be able to do better than this. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill is usually something that we can all find common ground on--the importance of standing up for our nation's veterans transcends partisan battles. This year, however, the bill Republican leadership put on the floor not only shortchanged our veterans and servicemen and women, but the modest increase in spending over last year's bill will require cuts to critical public spending on education, health care, and infrastructure in later appropriations bills. Even veterans service organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars urged opposition. The bill also included a policy rider preventing the transfer of detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, a prison whose very existence undermines America's security and international standing. Further, part of the spending of this bill is through the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, an unrelated war slush-fund that is exempt from all budget caps. During consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment that would have allowed VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in the states where it was legal if they so choose. Our veterans should have the same medicines available to them as everyone else, and we should not prohibit VA doctors from consulting with their patients in accordance with their medical training and state law. I am disappointed that my amendment very narrowly failed, but I remain encouraged that we continue to build momentum in this issue, and gained significantly more bipartisan support than last year. The Energy and Water appropriations bill, while it contains some infrastructure funds that are critical to ports, waterways and freight movement integral to Oregon's economy, ultimately contained too many provisions bad for the environment for me to support. It prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from finalizing and implementing rules to ensure clean water in streams and wetlands that provide drinking water for one in three Americans. It dramatically underfunds renewable energy support programs, while propping up fossil fuels and nuclear weapons spending, and delivers deep cuts to programs that assist low income families with energy bills. It also contains nonsense amendments, such as a measure to prevent the Department of Energy from implementing a law requiring incandescent light bulbs to be more energy efficient, even though American manufacturers have already adopted the new standard. In addition, both of these bills adhere to the Republican budget's overall spending caps that account for sequestration. These caps reflect the lowest discretionary spending we've seen in ten years, and we simply cannot continue to cut government programs that are so critical to environmental protection, health, education, economic stability and defense.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on May 31, a looming deadline, the highway trust fund extension expires. I actually could have dusted off the speech I gave last summer, arguing against this ill-advised measure to slide it into this spring. As I pointed out then, we will be right back in the same spot. We will be stuck. We won't have a long-term proposal. We won't have a short-term proposal. We will look at another extension. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to stop the stalling. Everyone ought to make a commitment that this will be the last extension that we take before we give America what it needs, a robust 6-year reauthorization of the critical highway trust fund. Please focus on making sure this does not slide beyond the end of this Federal fiscal year because Congress doesn't act absent some sort of deadline, and do instead what we do best: stall, study, and sidestep. If we would actually start working now, the 5 months until the expiration of this Federal fiscal year, we can actually give the people legislation they deserve. It is not that hard; except if you never start, if you don't know how big the program is going to be, if you don't get down to business, it is difficult. Now, I hear that the simplest approach, the most direct approach-- raising the gas tax for the first time in 22 years--is somehow too hard, too difficult for Congress. It has been pronounced dead on arrival. It is off the table, according to our distinguished majority leader and the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. Why exactly is it off the table? Why is this too hard for Congress? If it was good enough for Dwight Eisenhower to start the Interstate Highway System, if it was good enough for Ronald Reagan to call Congress to come back during his Thanksgiving Day speech, November 29, 1982, to more than double the gas tax, if it is good enough for 19 States--including, this year, five Republican States--to raise the gas tax, why is it too hard for us? Maybe it is because we have never given the people who care deeply about this a chance to make their case. The Republicans have been in charge for 52 months. We have not had a single hearing on Ways and Means on transportation finance. What if we allowed the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Trucking Association, contractors, local governments, engineers, environmentalists, mayors to come in and make the case why they support raising the gas tax? Maybe if Congress did its job, if it listened to the people, if it allowed the broadest coalition you have seen on Capitol Hill on any major idea to come in, take a couple days, work with Congress, explain the issues, dive into the details, actually show politicians that even the public supports it, maybe we could do our job, maybe we could have a 6-year reauthorization, maybe we could put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs all across America, making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. Deadline, September 30--get down to work; have some hearings; do our job; produce the bill, and America will be better off.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, 36 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws that provide legal access to medical marijuana in some form, and over 1 million patients now use medical marijuana to treat conditions ranging from seizures, anxiety, chronic pain, nausea associated with chemotherapy, and post-traumatic stress at the recommendation of their physician. Over 213 million people reside in those jurisdictions; yet, according to Directive 2011-004, the Department of Veterans Affairs prohibits its medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a State medical marijuana program. The amendment I am offering ensures that no funds made available to the VA can be used to implement this prohibition. The amendment will not encourage doctors or patients to recommend or use medical marijuana. It would not authorize the possession or use of marijuana at VA facilities. It would simply free up VA providers to have an honest conversation about treatment options and recommend medical marijuana in accordance with State law if they think it is appropriate. It would not force veterans to not work with their primary care provider. I am joined in offering this bipartisan amendment by Congressman Heck from Nevada, Congressman Rohrabacher, and a series of other Members, some of whom you will hear from. Over 20 percent of the 2.8 million American veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD and depression. They should not be forced outside the VA system to seek a simple recommendation about a treatment that might help them manage these conditions. I will say, while nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose, we are watching veterans have prescriptions for opiates who suffer from PTSD, for example, more than others, and their suicide rate is high. There is real danger in not being able to provide balanced treatment. Our VA physicians should not be denied their First Amendment right to have an honest conversation about options and offer a recommendation they think could bring relief and well-being to a patient. Our veterans should not be treated as second class citizens in the States that permit medical marijuana. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. First, it isn't just PTSD that medical marijuana is used for. There is a whole host of other conditions that were available. Second, the marijuana medical train has left the station. A million Americans have a legal right to use medical marijuana, and they do so. You want to treat veterans differently. Third, medical marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as what is happening to our veterans right now. Veterans seen by agency doctors are dying from prescription drug overdoses nearly twice the national average. Nobody dies from an overdose of marijuana; and the VA doctors prescribe significantly more opiates, which are highly addictive, to patients with PTSD and depression than other veterans, even though those people suffering those conditions are more at risk of overdose and suicide. Get your facts straight. I am happy to do more research; I have work coming forward, but, in the meantime, don't treat these veterans as second class citizens. If you want to be concerned, be concerned about the explosion of addictive drugs that are being prescribed to people who we should be giving more care. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on H.R. 373 but had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' The Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act would allow volunteer search groups faster access to public lands to conduct searches for missing persons. This legislation will help first responders as well as victims and families in difficult situations and I support its enactment. I was absent for the vote on H.R. 1324 but had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' The Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 2015 will adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado to incorporate additional land.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 1560, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act and H.R. 1731, National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act. H.R. 1560 was an overly broad intrusion into civil liberties. While H.R. 1730 was more narrowly tailored and represented progress from previous cybersecurity bills that the House has considered, I continue to have reservations, particularly with the liability provisions in the bill. Protecting ourselves against cyber-attacks is critical for national security and for a robust economy, and I strongly support taking actions to ensure that we have the best mechanisms in place to defend against cybersecurity threats. In working toward this goal, however, we cannot sacrifice important civil liberties or the privacy of American citizens. We must also ensure that companies can be held accountable if they fail to protect personal information or fail to act on cybersecurity threat information. I will work to help these proposals to evolve so that we will consider an improved solution in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when foreign countries selectively enforce their environmental rules to advantage their own companies, it undercuts U.S. companies and it harms the environment. Our trade negotiators should have the tools they need to adequately enforce environmental commitments. The problem is proliferating. A survey conducted this year by the American Chamber of Commerce in China found that 57 percent--a multi- point increase from last year--of U.S. companies operating in China believed they were being unfairly targeted compared to their local competition. The U.S. should have the tools to correct such disadvantages. The Green 301 Act would be an important tool in this regard. The Green 301 Act strengthens Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to strengthen the U.S. Trade Representative's ability to ensure that the law is applied equally, that bad actors are held accountable, and that good actors are not penalized for following the rules. By making sure U.S. companies aren't forced to play by a different and more costly set of rules abroad, we can bolster environmental protections and best practices, as well as U.S. exports. The selective enforcement of environmental laws damages both trade and our environment. Specifically, the Green 301 Act would allow the U.S. to impose penalties on countries that fail to effectively enforce their environmental laws, that waived or otherwise derogated from their environmental laws, that fail to provide for judicial proceedings giving access to remedies for violations of their environmental laws, that fail to provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies for violations of their environmental laws, or that fail to effectively implement environmental commitments they agreed to with the United States. Additionally, Section 301 enables outside groups to petition USTR to take action. Any outside organization may file a Section 301 request with USTR, which must then consult with the petitioners, and report back within 45 days on whether they will or won't act on the petition and why or why not. The Green 301 Act would ensure this process is expanded to environmental violations. U.S. trade agreements attempt to limit these unfair double standards. Dozens of countries, however, fall outside our trade commitments. To level the playing field in these countries, and to stop a race to the bottom, Congress included Section 301 in the Trade Act of 1974. This section authorizes the U.S. to take action to remove ``any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that . . . is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.'' Congress later expanded Section 301 to deal specifically with IP issues, and later amended it to address labor standards. It is time that Congress expand it again to meet environmental challenges.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as trade agreements have evolved to more accurately reflect international commerce, they've become more complex. This complexity limits U.S. ability to simultaneously oversee, implement, and enforce these agreements. For instance, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). Nearly 15 years later, as outlined in the 2014 Special 301 Report, Chinese laws still call for mandatory intellectual property transfers from U.S. firms to Chinese parties--laws that are inconsistent with their WTO commitments. Similarly in Peru, the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 2009 and contained some of the strongest environmental protection and conservation provisions ever included in a trade pact. Implementation, however, has faced constant efforts to roll back progress. These two examples do not necessarily demonstrate a lack of commitment to enforcing our trade agreements. They do, however, demonstrate that enforcement resources have not kept pace with the scope and complexity of our trade agreements. As a result, we have not been able to extract the full value of our agreements to the disadvantage of our businesses and workers. Looking ahead, some Trans- Pacific Partnership countries will need significant capacity building and technical assistance if they are to meet their new commercial, environmental, and labor obligations. The STRONGER (Supplemental Trade Review, Oversight, Noncompliance and General Enforcement Resources) Act of 2015 would create an Enforcement Fund to support trade and development agencies for a narrow set of uses relating to the enforcement and implementation of our trade agreements. This fund would follow the precedents of the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the Sport Fish Restoration & Boating Trust Fund, and others that rely on a small portion of related tariff revenue to fund a multi-agency effort. During the last five fiscal years, the United States has averaged $442 million in anti-dumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD) that go to Treasury's General Fund. The Enforcement Fund would receive a small fraction of our annual AD/CVDs--never to exceed $30 million with a maximum transfer of $15 million annually--for the enforcement and implementation of our trade agreements. Under the legislation, certain U.S. agencies would be authorized to use Enforcement Fund resources for the enforcement of current and future FTAs, the implementation and enforcement of WTO obligations to which the U.S. is a party, capacity building focused on effective implementation and compliance with FTA commitments (with priority given to environmental and labor commitments), and the monitoring and evaluation of U.S. capacity building efforts to ensure investments are spent wisely. Importantly, none of the funds could be used for negotiating new trade agreements. The STRONGER Act would also establish a set of requirements enabling continuous oversight and improvement in our trade capacity building investments.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. President, please help us stop this madness. The same way President Reagan demanded Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, you have an opportunity to stop serial malpractice on the part of Congress refusing to meet its obligation to fully fund our transportation responsibility. Twenty-three short-term extensions of the transportation program in recent years is as embarrassing as it is destructive. No country became great building its infrastructure 9 months at a time. You can bring this charade to a halt. With all the major agenda items on the table this spring for Congress, there is no way that we are going to be able to do anything but extend the May 31st transportation deadline, when the funding authorization expires. That is the most recent time when Congress kicked the can down the road, what it approved last fall all the way to this spring. I said at the time, When spring comes, we will be right back in the same situation. And we are. This does not mean that we need to write off the entire year and beyond. It certainly does not mean that we need to throw this issue into the middle of the next Presidential campaign, which unfortunately has already started. You should give us a reasonable deadline: July 1st, August 1st, or even September 1st. Under no circumstances should you let this bleed into the next Federal fiscal year, starting October 1st. We lost an opportunity at the end of the last Congress to force responsible action in the lame duck session after the 2014 election. We were close, but it eluded us. Please don't let that happen again. Make clear you will not sign any transportation extension beyond the end of the Federal fiscal year. Mr. President, you don't have to dictate a solution. You have already indicated what you want in a robust 6-year bill; you have given an outline of how you would have Congress fund this significant reauthorization. Your Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx, has been traveling the country, advancing a vision for transportation for decades to come; and he is clear about the need for bold action to properly fund it. You and your administration have also made it clear that you are willing to sign any reasonable bipartisan legislation that meets the standards that we need. It needs to be sustainable; it needs to be dedicated; it needs to be big enough to get the job done. Let Congress put up or shut up. Force it to act by not extending the deadline past October 1st. Recently, the historic solution driven by Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi took a problem that long seemed intractable here on Capitol Hill since 1998 on Medicare payments and the funding under the so-called ``doc fix,'' but yet enacted a permanent solution on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly approved in this House and in the Senate. It required leadership and for some people to relax somewhat their partisan talking points--if not their core principles--but we all got the job done under your leadership. Let's do the same on transportation funding. Let's lay down an absolute deadline. Let's refuse to let it slide past October 1, 2015. Let's all work together, demanding Congress do its job. Several hundred Members of Congress signed a letter recently circulated by Congressman Ribble and Congressman Lipinski, my colleague from Illinois, saying that that is what should happen. Well, let's actually do it. Together, Congress can be forced to act. We can rebuild and renew America, putting hundreds of thousands of people to work at family wage jobs, making our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. It is not going to get easier if we stall. It is not going to be a smaller problem if it is going to be done next year or the year beyond. Let's decide this summer we are going to get the job done. Mr. President, you can help us by demanding that it be done according to a strict timeline, no later than October 1st.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since California first passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1996, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have approved medical marijuana programs. An additional 13 states have passed laws allowing for the use of low-THC forms of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions. In addition, voters in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska have voted to allow the retail sale and adult use of marijuana. Any business associated with these expanding industries, however, face a legal gray area between federal and state law. While states have expanded legal economic opportunities, federal drug, tax, and banking laws continue to limit these emerging small businesses. It has long been recognized that marijuana has therapeutic values. People use it to deal with chronic and paralyzing pain, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis. More of our veterans now use it to help with PTSD. At least one million people now receive legal medical marijuana treatment. What remains illegal, however, is for the thousands of legitimate businesses providing a legal product to treat their business expenses like every other business and deduct them from their operating income. The federal tax code prohibits anyone who sells Schedule I or Schedule II substances from deducting their business expenses from their taxes. Congress added this prohibition in 1982 after a drug dealer claimed his yacht and weapon purchases as legitimate business expenses. As marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance, even businesses operating in compliance with state law are not allowed to deduct the common expenses of running a small business, like rent, utilities and payroll. This is why I am introducing the Small Business Tax Equity Act, bipartisan legislation to allow marijuana businesses operating in compliance with state law to deduct their legitimate expenses. It will only have effect in states which have legalized aspects of marijuana use. Legal businesses in America are taxed on their income, not on their gross revenues, except for the otherwise legal operation of marijuana businesses. Our failure to update federal tax law forces these businesses to discontinue important services or to drive them underground, which encourages evasion. This bill adapts federal tax law to state law and ensures the fair treatment of a legal industry. It is time for the federal government to catch up with the states. We must level the playing field for small businesses that create jobs and boost local economies. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would do just that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. Madam Speaker, it is ironic. This week, we have had hundreds and hundreds of businesspeople, folks from organized labor, contractors coming to town, pleading with Congress to get its act together and enact a 6-year comprehensive transportation bill. We have been frozen in place for years, with 23 short-term extensions because this Congress can't figure out how to provide the resources necessary to deal with a critical situation. America is falling apart and falling behind, yet we are caught here in an inability to provide resources to help rebuild and revitalize America. That is part of the issue. Today my Republican friends have discovered that there is $270 billion of revenue that somehow the Federal Government no longer needs. They have decided to give an additional tax cut to people who need the help the least. And, ironically, for all the talk about this being a death tax and double taxation, the vast majority of the wealth that will be untaxed has never been taxed in the first place. You don't get to be a billionaire on W-2 income. It is appreciated capital. But we are going to, in their judgment, give a windfall. We have had this tax for over a century from Republican administrations, but we are going to turn our back on it because we no longer need $270 billion while we continue to shortchange America. We are having construction projects stopped this summer because the short- term fix for the transportation bill is going to expire. This is lunacy. It is not fair.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today is April 15. This is the day that our income taxes are due, a day that is difficult enough under the best of circumstances, but made even more difficult, purposefully, for millions of Americans. My Republican friends have decided to take out their differences with the IRS by deliberately torturing the American taxpayer. Ours is the largest tax system in the world that relies primarily on voluntary compliance. Most Americans, in fact, do comply, but an ever- increasingly complex tax system makes that compliance difficult. It should be noted that it is not the IRS that makes the Tax Code complex; it is Congress that makes the Tax Code complex, a Congress that is sometimes so late in meeting its obligations with tax changes that the Service has difficulty even printing the forms on time as these changes occur every single year. In order to help citizens with Congress' complex tax system, the Internal Revenue Service runs the largest consumer service operation in the world, but this process has been deliberately sabotaged by the Republican approach to the agency budget. The agency has 30,000 fewer employees today than it had in 1992. The real budget adjusted for inflation is about the level we had in 1998, when we had fewer taxpayers filing returns and a Tax Code that was smaller and less complicated. If Congress had truly been partners with the agency in improving its service in streamlining and modernization and giving them today's computers, maybe it would be possible to keep pace, but the IRS has been given a budget that prevents it from modernizing its information technology. It uses applications for its computers that were running in the early 1960s. The IRS is virtually a museum of computer technology, but you cannot modernize the simple call service function of answering phones and talking to taxpayers, yet Congress has deliberately slashed that money available for those positions. When you visit the IRS offices, which I have and which I hope every one of my colleagues does before they reduce those budgets yet again, they will find employees who simply cannot meet the needs of their customers. Our employees don't like putting people on hold for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or more or dropping the calls altogether. It frustrates the taxpayer, and it breaks the hearts of our employees. Now, it is no secret that some people forget to declare all of their income, and, frankly, there are some people who actually cheat on their taxes, but Congress has not equipped the IRS to do the audits necessary to actually collect the money that is due--billions and billions of dollars--which would pay for badly needed government services or reduce our debt. They refuse to fund some positions that would not just pay for themselves but would collect 10, 20, 30 times or more their annual salaries, and Congress is deliberately making it worse with yet another budget cut while watching the exodus of highly trained, skilled professionals who have better things to do with their lives than work in an impossible situation and constantly be under attack. I have no doubt that there are times when the agency has not performed in ways that we would all like, but the solution is not to torture the taxpayers and fail to equip the agency to do its job while continuing to make the Tax Code ever more complex. This is gross political malpractice. It is not fair to the taxpayers; it is a disservice to our employees; and it makes it hard to fund the needs of our Nation. They may think it is good politics to make the taxpaying experience as miserable as possible, but it is, ultimately, bad judgment; it is poor politics; and it is a disservice to the American public. Many of my colleagues have been looking at scandal within the IRS. Whatever problems they uncover or imagine, the real scandal is how the Republican budget is treating the American public and the people who work for them at the vital service of the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week on Capitol Hill, there are hundreds and hundreds of people from around the country who are delivering a message: that America is falling apart and is falling behind, and it is time for us to address the critical funding shortfall for our transportation needs. They could not have picked a better time to come to Capitol Hill. The 10-month extension of the surface transportation legislation is set to expire in 6 weeks. It is the latest in a series of 23 short-term extensions. No nation ever became great planning its infrastructure 9 months at a time. The Republican budget--passed last month--again proposes to cut transportation spending, which is already inadequate, 30 percent over the next 10 years despite hearing from local governments, business, labor that the Federal Government should be larger in its contribution, not smaller. The unwillingness to face reality got us to where we are today, falling apart, falling behind. The country that used to have the finest infrastructure in the world was recently rated 17th, and we are falling further behind. The gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993, and it has lost nearly 40 percent of its purchasing power. We can't pay for transportation in 2015 with 1993 dollars, but it is interesting that action has taken place on a number of different levels. Over a dozen Senators have been talking about raising the gas tax. Some of my Republican colleagues in the House have agreed that raising the gas tax is the right thing to do. When I introduced House Resolution 680 in February that would phase in a 3-year, 15-cent gas tax increase, I was joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, truckers, AAA, transit, local government, contractors, and bicyclists--it is the broadest coalition you will see on any major issue--all saying to Congress, Stand up and do the right thing. A gas tax increase is the only solution that is dedicated, sustainable for the long term, and big enough to do the job. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, while Congress continues to dither, people at the State level are taking action in anticipation that the Federal partnership will be there. Two years ago, I was told it was impractical; it would never fly politically. Well, what we have seen in the last 2 years, that 13 States-- including 7 Republican States--have raised the gas tax. Of the State legislators that voted to increase the gas tax, 98 percent of them were reelected--I would note, a better percentage than the Senate Democrats running for reelection in the last election. With the support of Congress, this broad coalition, we can actually step up, revitalize the economy. We can strengthen communities. We can put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work at family wage jobs in every State in the Union. Mr. Speaker, in 1982, Ronald Reagan gave his Thanksgiving Day address, where he pointed out that the gas tax hadn't been raised in over 20 years. He pointed out needs for critical maintenance and construction. He pointed out that raising the gas tax would create hundreds of thousands of family wage jobs. Ronald Reagan called on Congress to come back and more than double the gas tax. Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill and Congress did just that, and America was the better for it. There is no reason that this Congress cannot demonstrate the foresight and courage of President Reagan and the Congress over 30 years ago and show the fortitude that has been shown in States around the country who are betting that we are going to be there working with them. I sincerely hope that my colleagues listen to the hundreds of men and women on Capitol Hill telling this story from the perspective of unions, local government, and business. The needs are there. Congress needs to act. The public deserves no less.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the floor for the entire debate--of both the Commerce and Ways and Means Committees--and it is really exciting. I was one of those people who didn't vote for the balanced budget agreement back in the day, but I have been frustrated by this as much as anybody. I had legislation that would just simply reset the baseline, but, actually, this is better. It is better because we have had Ways and Means, Commerce, and Finance Committees come together for several years and develop a reform that will strengthen opportunities for better payment. It is better because we have seen the minority leader and the Speaker of the House come together to empower the committees to do their job. I was struck by the words of Majority Leader McCarthy when he said this was a good day, and he thinks that this will not be the last such day. I sincerely hope that that is the case, that it signals opportunities for us all to go forward. I like the fact that we have added things in here like the SCHIP. We have even gotten Secure Rural Schools, funding extended which makes a big difference for people in the West, especially Oregon. I am hopeful that we can step forward. We have got another cliff that is facing us in 2 months: the transportation cliff. People are talking about 17 SGR fixes here when we have had 23 short term extensions for the transportation system. I would hope that we could take the same spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship and listen to people in the outside world--organized labor, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. chamber, contractors, local government, environmentalists--who are all speaking with one voice: Congress, get your act together; give us funding to be able to fund the transportation bill for the first time in years and rebuild and renew America, to put people to work--and to show the same sort of bipartisan cooperation that I find really invigorating today. I hope the next thing we do is have the Ways and Means Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, step forward to solve the transportation problem. It is even easier than the SGR.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the latest chapter in the drama of Republican control of Congress. This is their first opportunity with complete control of both Chambers to bring into focus what they would do governing, and the results aren't pretty. We are discussing this week a budget that has been labeled by press accounts that actually give them the benefit of the doubt as being phony or a disaster. It has been condemned by many conservative commentators as a sham. The purported $5.5 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years provides no good explanation about how it can actually be achieved. There is a trillion dollars in unspecified reductions ``other mandatory programs.'' They would abolish the Affordable Care Act, but somehow keep all of the revenues that finance it. There are a few areas of clarity which are hardly comforting. The ratcheting down support for our low-income college students through Pell grants is hardly a step forward and will be widely condemned the more clearly people understand it. We are back to the Medicare voucher, which may have a different name but is still toxic. A measure of their understanding of its unpopularity is their refusal to put it into effect for seniors now. Instead they would have people approaching retirement age in their mid- fifties who will be able to enjoy the benefits and uncertainty of a vouchered Medicare program. It is silent on the transportation crisis that is already upon us. The latest transportation extension expires May 31. Resources are not going to be available to get us through this fiscal year, let alone the next fiscal year that they would budget for. And if the budget that they have foreseen would somehow be enacted as written, the next fiscal year would see massive cuts for every single State across the country for transportation. It continues to chip away at the ability of the Federal Government to hire and maintain the skilled workforce Americans depend upon. One of the most bizarre examples is their continued attack on the ability of the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, to perform the functions necessary to finance our government. What business cripples its accounts receivable department? And the proof of this approach is available to any American who tries to call the IRS to get information. It is almost impossible to get through now, let alone with the budget cuts that are anticipated. You can ask any CPA in your district about the devastating effects of crippling the IRS on not just the average citizen, but even on people who can hire the best legal and accounting services available. While the IRS may be an attractive target for their assault on government, the attack is not limited to the Internal Revenue or the EPA. This budget will have crippling effects on the American way of life all across the country. This budgetary approach that is already baked in produces fewer people to be able to deal with the services for the exploding number of retired people seeking help from the Social Security Administration. It shortchanges the maintenance of our national parks. It underfunds medical research that can make a huge difference for American families. Mr. Speaker, there are things that could be done. I introduced legislation this week, the REIN-IN Act, which would cut $100 billion of unnecessary spending on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years. These savings could be used to shore up the Department of Defense without resorting to the budget gimmicks that they are using. That is the bitter reality of their budget approach. It is not their theatrics or the creative terminology. Republicans are avoiding the hard questions and reasonable solutions. It is simply an assault on providing Americans with the services they want, need, and deserve. The more people understand this, the sooner we are likely to get the changes we need in the political process to get us back on course. This budget may be a sham and a fraud, but it contains dangerous elements that will affect every family in America. We can and should do better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act of 2015, a bill that would enable the U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent without shortchanging combat readiness and operations. The SANE Act would allow the U.S. to adopt a more practical and stable nuclear deterrent, while at the same time reducing costs and risks without compromising our security or that of our allies. This is achieved by strategically sizing our nuclear weapons programs, all while saving approximately $100 billion over 10 years and staying within the New START Treaty warhead levels. President Obama has committed to completely rebuilding all three legs of our nuclear triad--strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and nuclear-armed submarines (SLBMs). The SANE Act does not challenge whether the United States should maintain a triad. It does, however, inject fiscal responsibility and strategic reality into the administration's nuclear weapons planning, which many current and former officials have acknowledged is unaffordable. For instance, in 2013 former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, said of U.S. nuclear weapons modernization plans, ``The challenge here is that we have to recapitalize all three legs [of the nuclear triad] and we don't have the money to do it.'' The Pentagon's 2013 ``Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States'' declared ``that we can ensure the security of the United States and our Allies [and] partners and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent 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, General Cartwright, said the U.S. could go even lower without jeopardizing security. Despite these facts, U.S. nuclear weapons planning calls for spending $350 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and up to $1 trillion over the next 30 years, to build a nuclear force that will far exceed what the President, the Pentagon, and security experts have said will be needed to effectively deter a nuclear threat. Such spending is not only problematic for taxpayers concerned about fiscal responsibility, but those deeply committed to strong and capable military. Choosing to rebuild a nuclear triad with such capacity excesses means choosing not to invest in other areas. The recent National Defense Panel report called these plans ``unaffordable'' and a threat to ``needed improvements in conventional forces.'' Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, has echoed similar sentiments, stating in December 2014 that ``[w]e've got a big affordability problem out there with those [nuclear modernization] programs.'' America must reconcile the facts: our Defense budget is already squeezed, a nuclear deterrent is irrelevant to current international security challenges such as ISIS, the Ebola virus in Africa or even Russian aggression in Ukraine, and yet a nuclear deterrent is still a national security imperative nonetheless. It's time for the U.S. to procure what it needs, and what it can afford. The SANE Act deals with the coming fiscal and strategic reality scaling back and limiting new nuclear weapons programs now rather than waiting for ``disarmament by default.'' The SANE Act of 2015 is critical to securing a nuclear deterrent without undercutting critical investments in readiness and other essential programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Gretchen Miller Kafoury passed away 2 weeks ago in Portland. She left us at age 72, far too soon, only recently retired from her amazing career. It was my honor to have served with Gretchen in the Oregon Legislature in the seventies, on the Multnomah County Commission in the eighties, and the Portland City Council in the nineties. She fulfilled responsibilities in each office with a passion, a dedication to the underprivileged, a hardheaded realism; plainspoken, down-to-earth, warm and generous in spirit personally and professionally. She started her career as a Peace Corps volunteer in Iran. She loved that country and its people. Throughout her life, that experience informed her views of the Middle East, her knowledge of the warmth and support by the Iranian people for Americans. Gretchen offered a voice in our community for a more thoughtful approach to that country, including at least attempting diplomatic efforts. It is too bad she couldn't have talked to some people in Congress who were either too afraid or distracted to try diplomacy. Despite her well-earned reputation as a liberal firebrand, she was always supportive of thoughtful and diplomatic efforts of cooperation, negotiation, and listening. She was extraordinarily effective in advancing the interests of her constituents. Her legacy includes a facility for the homeless with her name on it and countless projects and programs that she helped conceive and advance. She helped shape policies in human services, land use, and the arts. Her legacy also includes her daughters, Katharine and Deborah. Part of that political legacy is a daughter, Deborah, who served in the leadership of the Oregon Legislature, following in her mother's footsteps, and is currently chair of the Multnomah County Commission on which Gretchen so honorably served. She was an educator, having taught for more than 10 years, most recently at the Portland State University Hatfield School of Government. She was a pioneer in women's rights, having famously helped lead the efforts to integrate the previously all-male Portland City Club. In our community, it was very significant in and of itself as a powerful signal of the acceptance of women, not just rhetorically. It was part of a cause for which she devoted her entire life. Women, gay rights, minorities, Gretchen was a tireless champion for people who needed a tireless champion. For all the joys of working with Gretchen, I will remember her best as a friend. Highlights include spending time with her at her lovely beach retreat on the Oregon coast or a fabulous trip to New York with our then-spouses that included running the New York Marathon, theater, good food, and fabulous company. Over four decades, Gretchen Kafoury helped make our community more liveable and more humane, and we are grateful.