Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, amidst the troubling picture coming out of the Israeli elections, there was some good news from the Middle East for a change. The Israeli Government announced that it would double the amount of water it sells to Gaza from 5 million to 10 million cubic meters annually. This is positive momentum we must build upon because, while it is an important step, the quantity is insufficient to prevent a humanitarian disaster looming for Gaza and the region. The tunnels that were dug by Hamas from Gaza into Israel were not the only things underground that should generate public concern. Without rapid action, the drinking water beneath Gaza, or the lack thereof, poses a threat to the region that is as severe or worse than Hamas' tunnels. That is because the coastal aquifer, the only source of drinking water for 1.8 million Gazans, is near collapse, as soon as 2016. Like the cities of Los Angeles or Tel Aviv, Gaza cannot currently meet its water needs from within its boundaries. That dynamic is compounded by the fact that Gaza's population is rapidly increasing and now consumes three times the amount of water that is naturally replenished from rainwater. The massive amount of water withdrawn from the aquifer over the last several decades has allowed salty Mediterranean seawater to contaminate the drinking water at an ever-increasing rate. A 2012 United Nations report said that 90 percent of the coastal aquifer salinity levels were too great for drinking purposes. Today that figure is 95 percent. By the end of 2016, the entire aquifer will be unfit for human consumption. And unless action is taken, by 2020, that damage will be irreversible. To make matters worse, Gaza does not have large and modern sewage treatment plants and operations. The sewage from 1.8 million Gazans further pollutes the groundwater and risks the outbreak of pandemic diseases like cholera and typhoid. Sewage remains untreated as 90,000 cubic meters of raw sewage, flows into the Mediterranean every day. Israeli intelligence knew about and warned about Hamas' tunnels long before they were used, but Israeli politicians chose not to take their counsel. Environmental and water experts have been warning for many years about the imminent collapse of Gaza's coastal aquifer, but too many politicians everywhere have failed to respond. While we don't want to minimize Israel's important move to authorize additional water into Gaza, we shouldn't overstate its impact in averting the region's looming water crisis. What is going to happen if thousands of Gazans actually rush to the fences, trying to get to Egypt or Israel for water? What happens if the water crisis broadens the appeal of Hamas' malice in Gaza? Look at the recent history in Syria, where the collapse of civil order and the civil war was precipitated by persistent drought that drove people from the countryside into the city. Such dire outcomes in Gaza could be avoided if additional and immediate long-term measures were employed. Based on the existing infrastructure, Israel has the potential to double--overnight--the quantity of water supplied to Gaza. A wastewater treatment plant recently built under the management of the World Bank in Gaza could reduce by a third the amount of untreated wastewater that pollutes both the groundwater and the beaches of Israel and Gaza. It is clearly in Israel's interest to facilitate the private-public partnerships that lead to greater energy independence and assist the Palestinian Water Authority. Strengthening the Palestinian Authority by increasing the flow of water into Gaza and dealing with the sanitation crisis weakens Hamas and highlights their inability to provide public services. Last night's election was deeply troubling for the future of Israeli politics and a two-state solution, long the policy of the United States and, until recently, the leadership of Israel. But taking action on water and sanitation is a small, critical, important step that everyone can support and will benefit Israelis and Palestinians alike. I hope this will be an important focus for those of us in Congress as we look at our aid packages going forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our communities need to be safer. More than 33,000 Americans die on our roadways each year, yet this is accepted as inevitability. Even more concerning, fatalities of our most vulnerable road users--pedestrians and bicyclists--make up a growing share of those deaths, with pedestrian fatalities increasing 16% from 2009 to 2014. People who die on our streets are disproportionally children, seniors, and people from low income or minority communities. Communities across the country are recognizing that there is only one number of acceptable deaths on our streets: zero. ``Vision Zero'' is the goal of eliminating all transportation-related fatalities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists and passengers. Cities from New York to San Diego are implementing interagency Vision Zero plans connecting engineering, education, and enforcement, to reach the goal of ending transportation deaths. Congress should encourage this innovative approach to transportation safety, and today I'm pleased to introduce the Vision Zero Act of 2015 with my colleague, Representative Buchanan. This bill provides local communities of all sizes with funding and best practices to plan and implement a Vision Zero framework. We should no longer accept bicycle and pedestrian fatalities as harsh reality, and this bill gives us the tools to reverse this trend.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I would like to express my appreciation to the chair, ranking member, ranking members of the subcommittee and chair. This is, I think, an example of Congress doing what it should do. I appreciate it. As an alumni member of the T and I Committee, I am proud to see this move forward. Rail corridors are absolutely critical in terms of being able to promote mobility. As the chair of the Bike Caucus, I am particularly interested in this amendment. The committee ended last Congress on a high note with WRRDA, and being able to start this Congress on a high note with a really thoughtful approach to Amtrak, moving this forward, I think, is a signal that there is no other committee that has more potential to do more this Congress to help rebuild and renew the economy and get America moving. This is a tremendous signal about what is possible. I lend my congratulations to the committee, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Brown, and look forward to working with you on more excitement as we move forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, 23 hours ago, in this Chamber, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was given a large megaphone to undercut American diplomatic attempts at restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. One has to go back to the days of Gen. Douglas MacArthur being fired by President Truman, who was then invited to Congress by the Republican leadership to a rapturous audience. Yet history has shown that General MacArthur and the Republican leadership were wrong, Truman was right, and is, deemed one of our best Presidents for the hard, difficult decisions he made to much political criticism. And history has not been so kind to the career and personality of General MacArthur and the message he delivered to that Congress. I suspect that history will not be kind to yesterday's speech and the decision to stage it. The Prime Minister delivered no alternative vision other than an impossible set of demands that would ensure negotiations by America, our allies, and the Russians fail. He seemed to doom Americans and Iranians to be permanent enemies, even though the Iranian people, distinct from the ayatollahs and their minions, by all accounts, are the only country in the region, other than Israel, that has a positive view towards America. Think about that. But the flaws in Netanyahu's speech were more fundamental. He had no alternative vision, no outline of a plan that would do anything other than lead to war. His remarks continued a series of dire predictions that I have heard from him since I first came to Congress in 1995. He had the same certitude when he testified before Congress about what a positive, transformational event it would be for the United States to go to war with Iraq. It was good politics at the time, probably even for most American politicians, and I am sure it was good politics in Israel. But he demonstrated spectacularly bad political judgment, cheerleading the United States into the worst foreign policy disaster in our history, costing us trillions of dollars with no end in sight, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, and casting the Middle East in turmoil. Indeed, Iran's ayatollahs were the only winners in the wake of that tragic war urged on by Netanyahu. It allowed Iran to have an outsized influence in the very countries that Netanyahu mentioned. The Middle East is in crisis, on the defensive with ISIS forces that are only slightly larger than the authorized strength of the California National Guard. Mr. Netanyahu produced a vision that is bound to fail, and at what cost to the American-Israeli leadership? Making Israel a partisan issue harms Israel, according to a good friend of mine who worked for AIPAC for years. More troubling, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not offer one word about his failure to produce a peaceful, two-state solution. Now, I would have welcomed even a word about the pending humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I am not talking about war with the militants. I am talking about 1.7 million people in a land where 95 percent of the water is already unfit to drink, and by next year it will be the case with all domestic water. If no action is taken, by 2020, that damage will be irreversible. But I was encouraged by the AIPAC conference. While I don't necessarily agree with all of their policy prescriptions dealing with Iran, I was heartened to see that they had two well-attended panel discussions featuring Gidon Bromberg, an Israeli expert, that highlighted why it was in both the interest of Israel and Gaza to solve the pending water and sanitation crisis and that solution is easily within the power of Israel, the United States, and other donor nations. I saw that as a bright spot in a troubling day. If we concentrate on simple, commonsense steps where we can work together to save lives and improve the future, I think there is a lot more on the horizon that we can accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I stand with Israel. That is why I chose not to undercut our diplomats in the midst of negotiating by attending that joint session. Netanyahu offers one perspective--certainly not mine. But challenging his ideas is not anti-Israeli any more than challenging the ideas of President Obama is anti-American. I will welcome a feasible alternative to a bad deal, but I have yet to hear one, especially from the Prime Minister. Until then, I will stand with Israel by empowering our negotiators and not undercutting them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 529, a bill that would expand section 529 college savings plans, when it passed the House today. I strongly believe in improving access to higher education, and encouraging families to save for college is a critical part of this in an era of rising tuition costs and deepening student debt. Since 1996, 529 plans have saved American families more than $225 billion. H.R. 529 makes several changes to update 529 plans, including removing penalties for students who are forced to withdraw from college and expanding the eligible uses. While I will vote for this bill, I wish this Congress would do more. The cost of higher education continues to increase and millions of American students carry non- dischargeable debt that totals over $1 trillion. At the same time, my Republican colleagues have slashed Pell grants, refused to provide students with the low interest rates granted to America's biggest banks, and continue to support predatory, for-profit institutions that shortchange our most vulnerable students. I support the modest improvements in H.R. 529, but I urge my colleagues to take up further measures to improve access to college and reduce student loan debt.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk of cliffs here in our Nation's Capital. We have fiscal cliffs that we faced with the debt ceiling. There was the sequestration cliff. We had, obviously, the cliffs surrounding the government shutdown. This week, we face a Homeland Security cliff. Because our Republican friends have been unable to reach agreement and have held hostage the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, we face a situation where we will either shut down those operations or, hopefully, people will come to their senses and take action. But, again, it is government by cliff. In March, we are facing the SGR cliff. If the government doesn't move forward to deal with a meaningful solution to the sustainable growth rate, we are going to see a dramatic reduction in government reimbursement under Medicare to providers. And looming in the background--something that we talked about last summer because Congress refused to deal meaningfully with transportation funding--there will be another cliff May 31 as the transportation fund loses its ability to fund. Already, there are programs around the country in local and State government that are trying to factor in reductions of important construction work that they aren't certain they can do this summer. Well, we are putting in the background another cliff. It is one that will probably not get the attention that it deserves, but one that deserves people to focus on because it will impact 11 million of our most vulnerable citizens. Over the course of the years, there have been opportunities within the trust fund that funds retirement and disability, which are basically, for most people, synonymous--they are paid for by the same tax on our earnings and that our employers pay, but they have been segregated into two accounts, one dealing with disability and one dealing with retirement. Over the history of these two programs they have spent at different rates. Eleven times in the past, under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, Congress has moved to shift money from one trust fund to another to be able to even it out and not run out of the ability to pay benefits. The last adjustment was made in 1994, but the disability account was only adjusted for about 20 years. At the time, it was understood that there would be a need for more action dealing with disability because of a very fundamental demographic change: we have a lot more women in the workforce and the baby boom generation is moving into the years in their careers where they are more prone to disability claims. And, sure enough, that projection is right. Around December of next year, we will no longer be able to pay full disability payments unless there is an adjustment. Well, the fix that has been done 11 times over the years, on a bipartisan basis, has been made infinitely more difficult because of a rule change that our friends on the Republican side have adopted for this Congress. Under what they have approved, it will be impossible to make that simple adjustment that we have done time and time again if a single Member of the House of Representatives objects. This is setting up an artificial crisis. There is a need to adjust funding for both Social Security and disability because, combined, in about 2033 or 2034 they will not be able to pay out full benefits. That is why it is important for Congress to be able to step forward and deal with it meaningfully, but it is not something you do in a crisis, and it is not something that should be done by picking out the one area in which 11 million citizens rely on these for disability payments. It should be done thoughtfully and carefully. If people are concerned about fraud and misuse, I would suggest that my Republican friends look at what they did in the budget process. Over the last 3 years, they have cut 7 percent out of the budget for the Social Security Administration that could have gone to deal with enforcement and that could have gone to deal with fraud and abuse. It could have gone to make sure that the program is operating properly. Instead, we have set up a crisis to try and force reductions in benefits for some of our most vulnerable. I think it is not the way we should go. We shouldn't be having government by cliff, but we also ought to be dealing with it in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion to make the adjustments that make it sustainable. In the meantime, the Republican leadership ought to waive that rule-- like they routinely do for things that they care about, like passing billions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts--to be able to allow the rebalancing to occur and the decisionmaking to be made in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015, legislation to create a federal excise tax on marijuana sales and move this industry out of the shadows and into the daylight. Over two-thirds of people live in a state or local jurisdiction that has decided that some aspect of marijuana use should be legally permitted. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing for medical marijuana in some form and five jurisdictions, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia legalized the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. National trends reflect those state efforts. More than 46 percent of Americans over the age of 18 have tried marijuana at least once and public opinion research reveals nearly half of the U.S. population supports legalization. Yet even as states and local governments have taken the lead in finding legal arrangements for marijuana, the federal government spends billions of dollars per year on incarceration and enforcement associated with federal marijuana laws. In addition, many marijuana businesses around the country--despite operating in compliance with state or local law--are not allowed to deduct their legitimate business expenses and often are unable to make deposits or maintain accounts as a result of federal banking laws. It is time for Congress to end the federal prohibition on marijuana, remove it from the Controlled Substances Act, and create a tax and regulatory framework similar to the frameworks in place for alcohol and tobacco. This represents a unique opportunity to save ruined lives, wasted enforcement and prison costs, while simultaneously helping to create a new industry, with new jobs and revenues that will improve the federal budget outlook. The Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015 phases in an excise tax on the sale of marijuana by a producer (generally the grower) to the next stage of production (generally the processor creating the useable product). This tax is phased in over five years following legalization. It starts at 10% and grows to 25%. The bill requires occupational taxes for those operating marijuana businesses. Those who do not comply with the taxation laws face civil or criminal penalties similar to those in place for the tobacco industry. The bill requires the IRS to produce periodic studies of the industry and make recommendations to Congress. Medical marijuana is exempt from these excise taxes. As I work with my colleagues and with stakeholders to move forward with this legislation, I emphasize that there remain significant questions and challenges. In particular, in the context of legislation, significant changes will ripple through the marijuana industry, with new products created, new business relationships developed, new consumer standards demanded, and wide variations in state and local laws. As this process evolves, we hope to work with the industry to ensure that the tax rate and framework appropriately reflects federal concerns and the needs of this developing industry. I am committed to ensuring that the legislation's terms are adequately tailored to reflect the realities faced by marijuana businesses and consumers in an ever-shifting market. It is important to note that states will remain free to make decisions about marijuana policy. Paired with Representative Polis' ``Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol Act'' this legislation establishes a starting point for laying out a federal regulatory and taxation framework for marijuana sales that are legal under state law.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we come today in the midst of a debate at a time when there are wide areas of agreement in this Congress about things that we should do to help improve the country. We all acknowledge the importance of tax reform. Many people in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, have a lot of time and energy invested in it. And in the other Chamber, they are establishing working groups to explore the challenges. The administration has set reform proposals in its budget that could be a basis of discussion in moving forward. Our past chairman produced a substantial draft and was, sadly, maligned for, in fact, achieving his objective of a significant reform that was revenue-neutral. And what we are seeing today is another in a series of bills that have nothing to do with really achieving that objective. In fact, they run contrary to past reform efforts. Yesterday in committee, we marked up something that has broad agreement in terms of helping deal with problems of deductibility for sales tax in States that don't have income tax. This was an area that was dealt with by the gentleman from Michigan, then-Chairman Camp, in his reform bill. Our current chairman has called for a different treatment. We understand there are challenges dealing with it. But all of a sudden, we are just moving that forward too, and that is on the conveyor belt that is moving forward. I think it makes a mockery of the process that it takes to reform the tax process, wherein we have so far already approved over $300 billion that, if approved, would add to the deficit. Now, mercifully, I don't think they are going to be enacted anytime soon, but it sets us back for the long-term objective and confuses what we could be doing. I find this at stark variation with how we deal with another area that used to be a bipartisan area of consensus, and that is providing funding for infrastructure to rebuild and renew the country. It was interesting, we have a highway trust fund where the current fix runs out this spring. The highway trust fund will be literally going broke by early June. Some States have already listed the projects they have as suspended or canceled due to this uncertainty. And more will act as it becomes clearer that we are in a pickle, and Congress has not yet moved forward. Last summer, when Congress struggled to pass the 23rd short-term extension to our transportation program, now-Chairman Ryan said that it is important that we follow ``a House budget rule that requires general fund transfers to the trust fund to be fully offset. It should not become a recurring practice for taxpayers to bail out the highway and transit programs because Congress and the President are unable to make the changes necessary to avoid future trust fund insolvency.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Kind of a different approach. Here, we roll through, add to the deficit, make tax reform more complicated, and the Republican-controlled Congress has yet, in the entire 50 months that it has been in charge, to have even a hearing on a proposal that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL- CIO, truckers, AAA, transit, local government, environmentalists, and mirrors something that Ronald Reagan did 33 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I suppose we have to go through this exercise. And we will do it, and we are going to see that there is kind of a two-track system. If you are on the conveyor belt for things that they want to move, it will go forward--consequences to the deficit be damned--even if it makes more difficult long-term tax reform and repudiates things that have had bipartisan interest in the past. In the meantime, things that have broad support, that have profound effects on the economy right now and impact people from coast to coast, lie dormant, and we are manufacturing another crisis. Oh, and before that, we are going to have an artificial crisis with disability funding because of a switch in the rules for those that don't get this favored treatment. There is a reason that we have got this gulf in terms of our inability to work together. There is a reason because there is a gap between those income disparities, failing to deal with policies that would narrow them rather than widen them. And I hope that we can get past this today and at some point get back to basics on things that will make us stronger, that can bring us together, and make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years our government has followed the most spectacular failure in policy since the disastrous 13-year experiment with the prohibition of alcohol. Forty-three years ago, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report, finding that the Federal ban on marijuana is unjustified and inappropriate. Yet, for most of that time, Federal policy has been frozen in amber. Countless lives have been ruined for the use of a substance that a majority of Americans think should be legal; untold billions of dollars have been spent on a failed effort at prohibition; and still 25 million adults use it every month. Despite a finding in Federal law that marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance with no therapeutic value, 213 million Americans live in 34 States and the District of Columbia where medical marijuana is recognized and legal in some form, and over a million people use it as medicine. In 1996, voters in California marked a significant change in course when they legalized medical marijuana with a vote of the people, and almost three dozen States have followed. In the fall of 2012, voters in the States of Washington and Colorado approved the adult use of marijuana, and it should be noted that the sky didn't fall, big cracks didn't appear in the Earth, and problems with marijuana didn't get worse. In some instances, they became more manageable. For the Federal Government, the tide continues to turn. Last session of Congress had six successful votes on the floor of the House to rationalize our foolish policies, including reining in Federal enforcement and opening opportunities for legal industrial hemp cultivation. Last fall, voters in my State of Oregon, looking at the evidence and experience like in Colorado, approved adult use by an even larger margin than in the previous States. The marijuana reform train has left the station, and it is time for the Federal Government to redouble its efforts on developing policies that work. Congressman Jared Polis and I will reintroduce this week our legislation to establish a Federal framework to end the failed Federal prohibition. It will pave the way for States to chart their own course to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana according to what individual States want to do--just like they do with alcohol. We will save tens of billions of dollars on failed enforcement, incarceration, and lost revenue. We will choke off a profit center for drug cartels that has been enriched by our failed policies, and we will make it easier to enforce laws to keep marijuana out of the hands of our children and have money for government services rather than waste money on failed policy, arresting people for something that a majority of Americans now thinks should be legal. For those of us who have worked in this field for years, it is an exciting time. My legislation will deal with the taxation of marijuana, and we look forward to refining it, to being able to have the tax at a proper level to support government services but also reasonable enough to choke off black market supply. It is time for us to enter a new era of marijuana policy for research, for protecting our children, for economic development and individual liberties. I strongly urge my colleagues to examine the legislation that we have advanced and be part of this long overdue effort at reform.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the scheduled March 3 invitation by Speaker Boehner to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress is wrong on many levels. It is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House to undercut an effort at a diplomatic solution to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This is calculated to occur at a very sensitive stage in talks to reach a potential agreement to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions. Undercutting that diplomatic option is wrong for the United States. It undermines our efforts to smooth choppy waters at a time when we are deeply concerned with ISIS, Hezbollah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. The potential of being able to work with Iran beyond the nuclear weapons issue is important for trying to manage many of the world's most explosive problems. It is impossible to fully comprehend the next steps if we undercut this diplomatic effort. Why give Iran an excuse to blame the United States for a failure of negotiations and play to their hard-liners, who don't want any agreement that would contain their efforts to build nuclear weapons? There are no other good alternatives. Some of the people most eager to ultimately use military force against Iran are the same people who were so enthusiastic about going to war with Iraq. The fallout of the war with Iran would likely be as bad or worse at a time of upheaval in this troubled region. There are other critical issues besides the negotiations with Iran. It is outrageous to think that Israel or any country would use Congress as a prop for their highly contested domestic elections. This proposed speech would be right in the middle of a short and heated Israeli election. It is unseemly and counterproductive. One has only to look at Netanyahu's television commercials from his last election--and how he used his appearance before Congress--to see where this is going. Finally, there is the issue of respect for the Office of the President and the responsibility to conduct foreign policy. I can't imagine what the reaction would have been if Speaker Nancy Pelosi had offered French President Sarkozy an opportunity to lecture Republicans and George Bush about our disastrous policy in Iraq. Republicans would have been apoplectic. This is not good for Israel either. It is creating a backlash at home for Netanyahu. It is creating heartburn for some of the strongest supporters of Israel in Congress, and it is straining the relationship between the administration and the Government of Israel. This drama is coming at a time when the majority of Israelis think their country is headed in the wrong direction, when Netanyahu does not have the majority support of his countrymen, when the election is quite close, with a significant number of undecided voters; and polls tell us a majority of Israelis think this speech is a bad idea. It is unnecessary; it is unfortunate; and it is a bad precedent. Joint sessions involving heads of state and other world leaders should advance American interests and be a positive expression of our values and our opportunities, not a partisan or an ideological device. This proposed speech fails that test. The invitation should be withdrawn or rescheduled, or the Israeli Prime Minister, himself, should reconsider. I, for one, have no intention of being part of dignifying this blatant political act with my presence, because it is not good for Congress; it is not good for Israel; and it is not good for the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleague and co- chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, Mike Fitzpatrick, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Welfare in Agricultural Research Endeavors, or AWARE Act. This bill would ensure that farm animals used in agricultural research at federal research facilities are included in the definition of ``animal'' under the Animal Welfare Act. A January 20, 2015 front page article in the New York Times, ``U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit: Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry,'' examined horrendous abuses at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. In the last 30 years, over half a million animals have been housed at the center. The center's experiments have included experiments to increase the number of twin births in cows and expand the litter size of pigs, without consideration of animal health impacts, and trying to breed ``easy care'' lambs that are born in open fields without human assistance--all with horrifying, and often unsuccessful results. At least 6,500 animals are known to have starved to death at this facility alone. Unknown numbers have died from negligence such as easily treatable infections, exposure to bad weather, or attacks by predators. In just the last 10 years, this single center has cost nearly $200 million with taxpayers footing the bill for this shocking abuse of animals. Appallingly, these animals are not currently protected under federal law. While the Animal Welfare Act ensures that certain minimum standards of humane care are required for federal and private research facilities, there is an exemption for farm animals ``used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber''--from those basic protections. As a result, federal facilities like the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center don't have to obey the Animal Welfare Act. This is why we are introducing the AWARE Act, which would close this loophole at federal research facilities. It is time that we step up to stop this horrible misuse of taxpayer funds. There is no reason that USDA agricultural research facilities experimenting on farm animals should not be held to the same standard as federal research facilities that conduct lifesaving disease research with the same kinds of animals. This is a small step that this Congress can take quickly to show that we respond to animal abuse and that the federal government will lead by example.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas where Congress has repeatedly come together in a nonpartisan fashion to make real progress has been legislation dealing with the protection of animals. This is something that unites us as we have been able to deal with a series of simple, commonsense steps to assure we meet the standard of care. That is why it was so horrific to read the terrible front-page article in The New York Times on January 20 about the Federal Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. Moving from the front page to two full pages on the inside were truly grotesque and horrifying examples of animal abuse. A young cow had its head locked in a cagelike device to keep her immobile while she was repeatedly--you can only describe it as sexually tortured for hours by as many as six bulls being studied for their sexual libido. Her back legs were broken, her body--in the words of one of the observers--was ``torn up,'' and the cow understandably died from her injuries. There were other experiments detailed, sheep and pigs, without consideration of animal health impact. It detailed horrifying and often unsuccessful results. At least 6,500 animals were known to have starved to death at this facility, and unknown numbers died from negligence from easily treatable infections, exposure to bad weather, or attacks by predators--all of this at a cost of almost $200 million of taxpayer money over the last 10 years, resulting in this grotesque abuse of animals. There is the ability to abuse, neglect, and even torture farm animals because there is no law that requires their protection. There is a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act which exempts farm animals used for research. Think about it. If you are abusing, neglecting, or even torturing farm animals for agricultural research, you don't have to obey the Animal Welfare Act. It is absolutely unjustified and outrageous. This week, Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick--my cochair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus--and I are introducing the AWARE Act which would require that in Federal facilities, farm animals used in agricultural research be included in the definition of ``animal'' under the Animal Welfare Act. It seems rather simple. It would ensure that these animals are treated like other warmblooded animals in other Federal research facilities. It is time that we step up to stop this horrific abuse. There is no reason that the USDA agricultural research facilities experimenting on farm animals should not be held to the same standards as Federal research facilities that conduct lifesaving disease research with the same kinds of animals. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this AWARE Act, the Animal Welfare and Agricultural Research Endeavors. It is supported by The Humane Society, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Legislative Fund, and countless people across the country who deeply believe in animal welfare. This is our job in Congress, and this is a small step that we can quickly make to show that we respond to animal abuse and that the Federal Government will lead by example. I would urge my colleagues to join Congressman Fitzpatrick and me as members of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus to work together on behalf of God's creatures who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing two pieces of legislation to address America's growing infrastructure funding crisis and looming transportation cliff. The reason is simple: America is falling apart and falling behind. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rated our infrastructure as a D+ and America, which once had the finest infrastructure in the world, was ranked 25th, behind Barbados and Oman, in 2013. The funding mechanism for our transportation system has been broken for years, and the Highway Trust Fund will run dry in May. On the eve of peak construction season, the U.S. Department of Transportation will be forced to stop reimbursing states for highway and transit projects. The uncertainty is already causing states and local governments to put off or cancel much-needed maintenance, let alone new investment. If this sounds familiar, it's because we've been here before. Since the last full six year surface transportation bill expired in 2003, Congress has passed 2 partial authorizations and 23 short-term extensions, most recently in August 2014. The federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993, has locked the Highway Trust Fund in a death spiral, and the search for necessary revenue has derailed a traditionally bipartisan, consensus-driven policy process. Just to maintain current, inadequate transportation funding, Congress has had to borrow more than $65 billion from the general fund since 2008, in an increasingly desperate search for revenue in all corners of the federal budget. The gas tax, since it was last raised to 18.4 cents a gallon in 1993, has lost nearly 40% of its purchasing power due to inflation and rising fuel efficiency. If the gas tax had been indexed to inflation in 1993, it would be at nearly 30 cents a gallon. Instead, the gas tax is barely higher in real terms than the first federal gas tax, levied at one cent a gallon in 1932. We're trying to fund 21st Century infrastructure with a Depression Era level of investment. It's no surprise that we face Depression Era consequences. The Highway Trust Fund will run an annual shortfall of more than $15 billion after 2017, and unless Congress acts, we face a drop in transportation funding of 30% over the next ten years. The situation is already dire--rough roads alone cost each driver an average of $324 a year, and the cost of time wasted sitting in traffic will top $1000 per family by 2020. Further, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that our deteriorating infrastructure will restrict our national GDP growth by nearly $900 billion by 2020. The case for increasing our investment in infrastructure is clear. A recent S&P Ratings report suggests that every $1.3 billion invested in infrastructure would add 29,000 jobs, $2 billion in economic growth, and cut the deficit by $200 million. Two congressionally authorized commissions, the Simpson Bowles deficit reduction plan, and organizations representing business, labor, environmentalists, car advocates and cyclists, all agree on the solution to solve the Highway Trust Fund crisis and increase transportation investment: raise the federal gas tax. The UPDATE Act, which I introduced today, would increase federal gas and diesel taxes by a nickel a year, phased in over each of the next three years, and index those taxes to inflation. This would generate $210 billion over the next ten years, enough to make up the Highway Trust Fund shortfall and increase infrastructure investment by at least $4 billion a year. It would cost the average driver roughly $70 a year over the next six years, or less than 20% of what every American is already paying in vehicle maintenance, lost travel time, and carbon pollution. Increasing the gas tax is the only solution to our growing revenue crisis that is dedicated to transportation spending, sustainable for the long term, and is big enough to do the job. For the first time in years, it's also politically possible. World oil prices have fallen nearly 60% since June 2014, and prices at the pump were at a six year low last week. More than 12 states are now considering increasing gas taxes, taking advantage of low prices. 8 states acted to raise gas taxes in the last two years, including Wyoming and New Hampshire. A growing number of Senators from both parties and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have signaled openness, if not outright support for raising the gas tax. The UPDATE Act will stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, and make sure that our infrastructure crisis does not worsen. The legislation also affirms the sense of the Congress that by 2024, the gas tax should be repealed and replaced with a more sustainable funding source. My second piece of legislation, the Road Usage Charge Pilot Program Act, provides research funding for states to explore a transition away from the gas tax to a system based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Such a Road Usage Charge system would be more fair, a more accurate reflection of road use, and more sustainable for the long term, as fuel efficiency increases and hybrid and electric vehicles rise in popularity. Questions remain about how best to implement such a system, collect revenue, and address privacy concerns. Congress should encourage states to answer these questions through pilot projects. This legislation, instead of tying America's transportation system to the past, paves the way for the future. Addressing the infrastructure deficit, stabilizing transportation funding, and helping America's all-too-slow economic recovery is critical if we want a livable and economically prosperous country in the years to come. All we need to make it happen is a commitment to build the future together.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is the week where the President submits his budget. We are seeing a great deal of conversation about many of the provisions. One area that I am pleased has been greeted with positive reaction is his emphasis on infrastructure, on rebuilding and renewing America. This is a debate that is very important. It is long overdue to focus in on solutions. It is an area of potential agreement: the need to address the fact that America is falling apart while we are falling behind, somewhere on the order of 25th in the world rankings. Where once we had the finest infrastructure in the world, that is no longer the case. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives us a grade of ``D.'' It is going to cost $2.2 trillion by 2020 to be able to bring us up to standard. The longer we wait, the worse the situation. It is costing each American $323 a year, on average, in damage to their cars because of inadequate infrastructure, to say nothing of thousands of lives lost because of unsafe road conditions and the potential disruption of business and commerce. Americans are spending millions of hours a year trapped in traffic. America's highways--which are how we deliver products to stores, to factories--are increasingly congested, causing increased costs due to delay. The President's proposal is a bit complicated. It deals with other tax provisions that virtually everybody thinks are a long shot, at best, to be enacted. This is part of the pattern the administration has had in the past: offering up things that, in theory, would make a difference but that are unlikely. Usually they are pronounced dead on arrival. Likewise, the proposals of some of my Republican friends for their approaches, wrapping it into their version of tax reform, have been consistently declared not possible. We have one, simple, commonsense approach that should be taken--it was highlighted again today in an editorial in The Washington Post. It has also been written about in The New York Times, in the LA Times, in USA Today, in Bloomberg View, in papers large and small across the country--to raise the gas tax. It has not been raised in 22 years, and in that time, it has lost a significant portion of the purchasing power while America's needs grow. For 60 years, the gas tax has formed the backbone of how we deal with America's infrastructure finance. The user pays--people who benefit the most pay the most--and it served us well for over half a century. But over the course of the last 10 years, it is no longer adequate. The fixed amount that hasn't been increased, the erosion due to inflation, increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles all combine to mean that we are falling short of the mark. We have been required to transfer over $60 billion from the general fund just to maintain our already inadequate levels of funding, and the current patch expires in May. The clock is ticking. There are opportunities to make a difference. It is interesting. It is not just the newspaper editorial writers who focus on this as the simplest, most effective, commonsense approach. We are finding in the other body a number of Senators, including Republican Senators, who indicate that they are open to finally addressing and updating the gas tax. My colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Jim Renacci from Ohio, wrote a very insightful article in a recent issue of Roll Call. He made the case for our moving forward with increasing the user fee to be able to maintain our roads and bridges, highlighting the costs and consequences. Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity for us to move forward. This does not have to be something that is complicated or partisan. This is something that Ronald Reagan in 1982 called upon the Congress to do, where he in his Thanksgiving Day address asked for the Congress to more than double the gas tax. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did it. We can do it today. I strongly urge my colleagues to address this simple, commonsense approach and help us rebuild and renew America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the bipartisan Veterans Equal Access Act along with my colleagues Dana Rohrabacher, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Tom Reed, Richard Hanna, Dina Titus, Sam Farr and Jared Polis, which will allow Veterans Health Administration physicians to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in states where it is legal. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that provide for legal access to medical marijuana. As a result, well over one million patients across the country, including many veterans, now use medical marijuana at the recommendation of their physician to treat conditions ranging from seizures, glaucoma, anxiety, chronic pain, and nausea. There are also nine states and the District of Columbia that now allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana for the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS), due to a growing body of anecdotal evidence suggesting that marijuana offers relief when nothing else has. While outdated federal barriers often prevent the research necessary to develop marijuana into an FDA approved drug, states have heard from their citizens, including veterans suffering from PTS, that marijuana is helping them now, and have adjusted their laws. Despite this growing state availability of medical marijuana, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prohibits VA medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding participation in a state marijuana program. The Veterans Equal Access Act would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to authorize physicians and other health care workers employed by the VA to provide recommendations and opinions regarding the participation of a veteran in a state medical marijuana program. This includes authorizing them to fill out any forms involved in the process of recommending medical marijuana. Veterans should not be forced outside of the VA system to seek a treatment that is legal in their state. VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer a recommendation they think may meet the needs of their patient. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Speaker, this is the 56th time we have gathered on the floor, talking past each other. The legislation that is offered by our Republican friends--a repeal--does not have any alternative. Frankly, everybody knows that it is not going to pass. If it were to be enacted into law, the President would veto it. The facts don't justify the rhetoric. We have 10 million previously uninsured Americans. We have the lowest health care spending growth rate in 50 years. Health care premium inflation is growing at historic lows, and Medicare premiums are lower than they were before the ACA was passed, and it held steady for 3 years. What should we be doing? Instead of trying to make the ACA worse and rail against it and get nowhere, I would suggest that we deal with things that we can agree upon. I have been working with my colleague Mr. Roe on bipartisan legislation to deal with providers helping with end-of-life care for patients; with Representative Roskam, a Medicare Common Access Card, bipartisan legislation to establish a smart card pilot project to eliminate Medicare fraud; with Representative Black, a value-based design for better care which would establish a pilot project to test reducing or eliminating cost-sharing for seniors with high-value medications. These are things that we could do this month that would make a difference. I hope that we stop this charade and get down to cases. The American public deserves our best efforts not to debate but to make health care better and to build on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the CIDER Act, legislation that will support the growing number of craft and entrepreneurial cider makers across the country. The cider industry has tripled in size since 2007 and there has been tremendous growth in Oregon. As these businesses get off the ground, I am working with them to ensure a strong federal partnership and to break down arbitrary barriers that prevent this industry from realizing its potential. During the fermentation process, a variety of factors can lead to small changes in the composition of a cider's alcohol content and carbonation. Because of the narrow way that hard cider is currently defined in the tax code, these small variations can lead to cider being taxed at a rate fifteen times higher than what the statute clearly intended. The legislation will better tailor IRS rules to reflect variations in craft ciders. This legislation will update the tax definitions to reflect the growing diversity of the U.S. cider market, better match international rules and strengthen U.S. export opportunities, and broaden the definition to include both pear and apple ciders. Production nationally has been robust, more than tripling from 9.4 million gallons in 2011 to 32 million gallons in 2013. Cider revenues in the U.S. have been just as impressive, tripling from $178 million in 2007 to $601 million in 2012. Providing clear regulations and a tax structure that mirrors the real world for this agricultural product will allow this industry to continue its expansion while making ciders that people want to drink. Cider making is sometimes closer to an art than a science. As the American apple and pear hard cider industry becomes more prominent on the world stage, and cider becomes a beverage choice for more Americans' developing palettes, we need to ensure that cideries have every opportunity to expand and meet the needs of this growing market without an unfair tax burden.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, once more, Republicans are seeking to limit women's access to safe reproductive health care through H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This is a sweeping ban on abortion coverage and another callous attempt to insert Congress into the most personal of conversations between a woman and her physician and I did not vote for it. Last week marked the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. It is exasperating that we still have to go through this annual charade as Republican leadership tries to force those of us who support women and their reproductive choices to take a ``hard vote.'' It is not hard for me to stand with the millions of women who depend on access to safe, legal abortion. It is not hard for me to vote against any bill that imposes the will of an intolerant, albeit vocal, minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is not hard for me to protect freedom of choice, because it is right and it is just. Instead of bringing up legislation to strengthen our economy or improve our infrastructure, Republican leadership is choosing to focus its efforts on legislation that will trump women's health, override family decisions, and compromise the ability of women and their doctors to deal with reproductive issues. It's a blatant attack on women and it's not hard for me to say that it is wrong.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night for the State of the Union address by President Obama, my guest was a Portlander, Cheryl Strayed, the author of the best-selling book, ``Wild,'' who is currently being portrayed on the big screen by Reese Witherspoon. This epic story is about how a young woman, reeling from the loss of her mother and the cascading challenges of her life, undertook a journey 1100 miles along the Pacific Coast Trail. It was 96 days of an amazing struggle, overcoming all sorts of difficulties, adversities, as she helped work out her own challenges and issues. I invited her because I thought the story that she portrayed, the experience that she had, was an interesting metaphor for the sorts of things that we should be doing here. Perhaps we might be able to come together as a Congress, supporting legislation that would help protect some of those special places that are portrayed in her powerful book and in the excellent movie. In the course of her visit, another thought has made its way to me as I watched her interact with dozens of young people in a variety of meetings on Capitol Hill, fellow Members of Congress, and many other people who were touched by the story of her journey and it made a profound effect on them. She continues to receive hundreds of emails a day from people who were inspired by that effort and her magnificent book. It occurs to me that it is an appropriate metaphor for what our challenge is as Members of the 114th Congress, because this, after all, is a 2-year journey on behalf of the American people. The question for us is: If we can struggle with that heavy pack, navigate areas where sometimes the trail is a little obscure, can we put our trust in strangers who help us along this difficult journey? Can we be resolute in putting one foot in front of another on behalf of the American public? Mr. Speaker, it was a very profound experience to watch those interactions, after having seen the movie, and having been entranced by the book. I am absolutely convinced that this is our moment, our journey into something that doesn't necessarily have to be ``Wild,'' even though there is a roller coaster of legislative activity. I am convinced there ought to be enough common interest, common commitment, common goals that we ought to be able to tease out elements that enable us to be successful in our journey. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that people will reflect on that experience of this young woman who was able to overcome adversity and open up an amazing chapter in her life and beyond. I hope we will be able to do the same for the people we represent.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the momentum for an increase in the Federal gas tax continues to build. This weekend's excellent New York Times editorial made the case why the increase is needed and long overdue. Costs of repair increase dramatically the longer they are delayed. In the meantime, Americans paid billions of dollars for congestion, wasted gas, and repairing damage to their cars, and thousands of lives are lost due to unsafe roads. This followed an editorial in The Washington Post making the same argument, joining USA Today, L.A. Times, and a variety of newspapers across the country. Recently, we have seen eight Senators from both parties who have been identified as stepping up, either supporting a gas tax or at least being open to it. We have seen leadership at the State level as eight States in the last 2 years have increased gas taxes, including some very red States like Wyoming and New Hampshire. Here in the House, there are already 136 Members who have signed a bipartisan letter urging the leadership to act on providing appropriate funding that is sustainable and dedicated. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do have a solution. This issue has been studied extensively, including two Presidential commissions during the Bush administration. The conclusion was that there is no better, more effective solution than simply raising the gas tax, which hasn't been increased in 22 years. People know America is falling behind as it is falling apart. The concern about the financial impact of a gas tax increase on families is waning. As gas prices plummet, my corner gas station is selling gasoline at $1.60 per gallon less than its peak last year. I will be reintroducing the funding proposal I had in the last Congress. That legislation was widely supported by a range of interests that included labor, business, the professions, local government, transit, environmentalists, truckers, AAA, and cyclists. They all agreed that there is a critical need to fund investments in rebuilding and renewing America. Mr. Speaker, the arguments today are basically the same that were used by President Ronald Reagan in his Thanksgiving Day address in 1982. He used his nationwide radio speech 33 years ago to call for an increase that more than doubled the Federal gas tax. He pointed out that that tax is actually for the people who benefit from using it, that the user fee would cost less than the damage to repair their cars from damage due to poor conditions from roads and bridges. As President Reagan said, it would probably be less than a pair of shock absorbers. He pointed out that the gas tax then, as now, had not been raised in more than two decades, and that repairing infrastructure that was failing would put hundreds of thousands of people to work while it protected the investment in our infrastructure as well as in our automobiles Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to step up. The States are doing their part. People are exploring innovative financing approaches involving the private sector. People are looking at creative ways to design and build projects, but there is no substitute for the 25 percent of infrastructure funding that comes from the Federal partnership. It is absolutely essential for projects that are multiyear, projects that are multimodal and that involve a number of jurisdictions, often a number of States. This May we face the expiration of the short-term highway trust fund fix from last summer. We are back in the exact same situation we were then. Failing to address the funding issue head-on has meant that we haven't had a 6-year reauthorization approved by Congress since 1997. Since then, we have had two ever-shorter reauthorizations and 21 temporary extensions. Over $60 billion of general fund money has been needed to just prop up our inadequate system. Mr. Speaker, no country has become great planning and building its infrastructure 6 months at a time. It is time to capitalize on falling oil prices, on the momentum that is building around the country, and the realization that we need to act now. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me and, indeed, President Reagan in this long overdue action. America will be better off, the economy will be stronger, communities will be more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. ``Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I do not support the development of tar sands--an environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive process--we should not continue a loophole that lets oil companies off the hook for covering destruction from oil spills. In 1990, we authorized the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the immediate costs of cleaning up oil spills, and it is funded by an excise tax on crude oil and petroleum products, but the oil derived from tar sands that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline is not subject to this tax. Since that oil is a thick, sticky form of crude, more difficult and costly to clean up than other types of oil, the exemption makes no sense, especially if it is as safe as some allege. That is why yesterday I reintroduced the Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act, which would ensure that oil pays into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that travels through this pipeline if it is ever constructed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the new Congress, America sees the two parties in both the House and the Senate, along with the White House, making statements that establish positions that distinguish one from another. But what if we started not by defining our differences but with efforts that would bring us together? We ended the last Congress with the passage of the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, something I have worked on with my friend and partner from Texas, Ted Poe, for years here in the House. There was extraordinary bipartisan leadership demonstrated by Congressmen Charlie Dent, Aaron Schock, Senator Dick Durbin. It did take 6 years, but this bipartisan effort for a humanitarian cause, especially benefiting women and girls around the globe, was worth the time and effort. The legislation focused and enhanced American efforts dealing with international water and sanitation. Today 152 million hours will be spent by women and girls traveling to get water, often dirty water, to meet the needs of their families in some of the poorest regions of the planet. This legislation created more focused American leadership, and it was backed up by unprecedented increases in American aid for water and sanitation. It will pay benefits for generations to come for millions, making friends for America while it allows children to live longer and makes the lives of women and girls more bearable. And we did it together. Are there other such candidates for legislation that will bring us together? Dr. Phil Roe and I have been working on the Personalize Your Care Act with medical groups, advocacy organizations, experts in palliative care, hospitals, the community of faith. This is an effort to make sure that at the end of life for our loved ones, they actually get the treatment they want, not health care on autopilot. We have had tragic stories about how medical decisions by reflex and default have put people in isolated ICUs in painful and foreign settings when actually most of them, and in fact most of us, would rather be comfortable at home, surrounded by our loved ones. There has been a brilliant and exhaustive report by the Institute of Medicine that deals with the problems and concerns and how we can do better. Dr. Atul Gawande's bestselling book, ``Being Mortal,'' makes it clear that there are crying needs and simple, commonsense compassionate solutions. There is a revolution taking place in health care today. What if, as part of that revolution, Congress started the new year with our bipartisan legislation, the Personalize Your Care Act, to make sure those families understand their choices, that their choices are known, and--most important--their choices are respected? We had dozens of cosponsors and broad support across the medical establishment and the community of faith. Maybe we can pick up where we left off and have this legislation bring us together to protect our families and start the year on a united front, giving families the protection they want for the care they need. There is no reason we in Congress need to spin our wheels and shout at and past each other. Mr. Speaker, I could have made this same presentation not about the water and sanitation, but about how this Congress came together in the final hours to help save the lives of Afghans and Iraqis who are now at risk from the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda because they helped Americans as guides and interpreters when we needed them. These are some of my examples of bipartisan cooperation that are important which we have done in the past. I would invite my colleagues to share their agenda of bipartisan, low or no-cost legislation that allows us to work together. It is not too late to start the year and this Congress right.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, along with twelve of my colleagues, I am reintroducing the Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act. This bill will ensure that oil companies can no longer sidestep paying their fair share into the dedicated trust fund created so that, in the event of an oil spill, there are resources immediately available for cleanup. If enacted, the legislation would generate approximately $665 million over ten years. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, authorized in 1990, ensures we have funding available to pay for the immediate costs of cleaning up oil spills. It is funded by an eight cent per barrel excise tax on crude oil and petroleum products. In 2011, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a misguided decision stating that oil derived from tar sands, the same type that will flow through the Keystone XL Pipeline if approved, is not considered crude oil and is therefore currently exempt from the tax that pays into the Fund. In 2013, we imported approximately 925 million barrels of crude oil from Canada, with over 400 million of these barrels coming from tar sands and not subject to the tax that goes into the cleanup fund. This is a significant liability, without any investment being made for if and when there is a tar sands spill. Oil that comes from tar sands is a thick, sticky form of crude oil that can be more difficult and costly to clean up than other types of crude. In 2010, for example, a pipeline owned and operated by a Canadian company, Enbridge, spilled more than 850,000 gallons of tar sands oil into a waterway that flows into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. That has been one of the largest and costliest pipeline spills in American history, with the price tag now at $1.2 billion dollars. I do not support the development of tar sands--doing so is environmentally destructive and carbon-intensive. Moreover, we should not keep in place a loophole that lets big oil companies off the hook for cleaning up their tar sands spills. The Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act would add oil derived from tar sands and oil shale to the definition of crude oil, closing the current loophole and ensuring that oil companies pay into the fund. Oil companies already get billions of dollars in taxpayer-based subsidies, and this bill will ensure they will not be given an additional free ride on tar sands and any future oil shale development.