Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Reduce Expenditures in Nuclear Investments Now (REIN-IN) Act of 2014. The bill would save $100 billion over the next 10 years by reducing or eliminating unnecessary nuclear weapons programs. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate, the SANE Act. We must significantly reduce U.S. spending on nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and related programs. Today, the United States spends more in this arena than it did at the height of the Cold War. A recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2014 and 2023, the costs of the Administration's plans for nuclear forces will total $470 billion. Other estimates come close to $700 billion, which is more than the federal government will spend on education over the next five years. Worse, there are plans in the works to spend billions of dollars modernizing our nuclear stockpile of missiles, submarines, and bombers, committing us to decades more of waste. We need to change direction. My legislation will make the nation safer. The large number of high- alert weapons we have now leaves dangerous room for human error. For example, in August 2007, a B-52 flew cross-country while unknowingly carrying six nuclear-armed, air- launched missiles. Just last month, the Air Force had to suspended 92 launch officers--or missileers--at Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT, where a drug investigation also uncovered that missileers may have been cheating on proficiency exams. The REIN-IN Act, which is supported by over two-dozen organizations, will increase Americans' safety by cutting the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles currently on 24-hour high alert from 450 to 150. We don't need an expensive stockpile of nuclear weapons that will never use to create a prosperous and secure society. As costs for our nation grow, there are areas where we can cut spending. The first place we should start is with our unnecessary and expensive spending on nuclear weapons that are more suited for the Cold War than the strategic challenges we face today. I look forward to working with the President and Congress to pass the REIN-IN Act, which will not only reduce overall spending, but reprioritize investments that will actually make the United States safer, more livable, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, I voted against three bills designed to weaken important environmental laws and roll back protections for our wilderness areas, parks, and wildlife. Many of my constituents love Oregon's public lands and use them for hiking, hunting and fishing. They value efforts to conserve and responsibly manage these lands. H.R. 3590, the ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act,'' will not, however, ensure responsible management and access. Rather, it contained measures to roll back important environmental laws, to curb public engagement in management decisions and limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to appropriately regulate toxic lead in ammunition. I joined a number of my colleagues in offering an amendment to H.R. 3590 to ensure the Secretary of the Interior maintains the authority to consider climate change when making decisions regarding conservation and recreational activities on public lands. I was disappointed that this amendment failed, and I will continue to use every opportunity to elevate the importance of climate change. H.R. 2954, the misleadingly named ``Public Access and Lands Improvement Act,'' also weakens protections for wildlife conservation at treasured places like Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Tetons and Cape Hatteras. Finally, H.R. 3964, the ``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act,'' will do nothing to help with serious drought conditions in California and overrides state and federal protections for wildlife and water quality. The bill sets a dangerous precedent by favoring certain water interests over others, disrupting the State's ongoing efforts to bring people together to find long-term, science- based solutions to manage this severe water crisis. Our precious natural resources and public lands face serious challenges when it comes to climate change, recreation management, and fish and wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, these bills did nothing to alleviate those problems.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, during a hearing with the Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Policy, there was a moment of clarity for me. I was struck by the realization that our own office, charged with drug policy, discouraging or eliminating drug use, might well be part of the problem. The poor witness was unable to answer my simple question, What is more dangerous, marijuana or methamphetamines? I asked, How many marijuana overdose deaths were there last year? No clear answer. The United States does have a drug problem--make no mistake--and it appears to be getting worse: 100 people per day die of drug overdoses. About 9 of them are from heroin; 60 percent of the deaths are from prescription drugs; pharmaceuticals, over 22,000 in 2010, the most recent year we have available, almost three times higher than in 1999. Why is the $25 billion we spend fighting drugs each year so ineffective in stopping, much less reversing, the trend? Are our policies and programs misguided? Could it be that too many of the wrong people are spending far too long in jail, wasting lives and money? The States seem to think so. They are reducing sentences and releasing prisoners. Now even the Federal Government is starting to do that as well. I think part of the problem is that we aren't honest about the impacts and dangers. Nothing better illustrates that than the continued misclassification of marijuana under Federal law as worse than cocaine and methamphetamines. That's according to Federal law. Is it possible that this Federal dishonesty means that people don't take drug warnings seriously? No one knows anybody who ever died from a marijuana overdose. The failed marijuana prohibition could actually make the real drug problem worse. Since all marijuana sales are, by definition, illegal, in the shadows, the money, the income, the profits help finance a drug trade that destroys life, like heroin, cocaine, illegal prescription drugs, and methamphetamines. How easy is it for the distributor, who has no license to lose, who never checks ID, to offer his marijuana customer something else, something worse, something more dangerous? I fear spreading misinformation and wasting resources, arresting two- thirds of a million people for something that most Americans now think should be legal, undermines what could be an effective approach. Think for a moment. Unlike marijuana, tobacco is a highly addictive killer-- over four hundred thousand people a year die from it yet tobacco use has declined almost two-thirds in the last half century. How did that happen? We don't arrest people who smoke. We didn't try tobacco prohibition. What we did was research. We found out the facts. We told the truth. We controlled the product. We taxed it heavily, raising the cost, especially to young people--all the steps exactly the opposite of our failed marijuana approach. I will be clear. For me, this goes beyond issues of marijuana policy. It is a symbol of a political process that is not thoughtful, not rational on dealing with things from the national debt, to our failing infrastructure, to climate change. Isn't it time for us to face some facts, adjust some policies, and move ahead?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, in a congressional hearing, under oath, Michael Botticelli, the Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, could not answer my direct questions: What is more dangerous, methamphetamine or marijuana? How many people died from marijuana last year? He complained that people think marijuana is benign. Well, I don't think marijuana is benign, but I can understand how people can get confused when so-called ``experts'' cannot give straight answers. Federal law says that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine, which everybody knows is a lie. Unlike marijuana, tobacco use is falling. Unlike marijuana, we don't arrest millions of people for using tobacco. Tobacco use has been cut almost two-thirds because we have been honest about the facts. Maybe there's a lesson for our drug policy officials: if you want to discourage marijuana use, be honest and be direct.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, before turning to the subject at hand, I really hope that people look at the CBO report that was referenced by my good friend from Pennsylvania, and you will find that the 2 million people who would no longer be working, are not going to increase unemployment. The unemployment rate will be lower. There are people who are trapped in the workforce now because they can't afford health care. The Affordable Care Act will actually enable some people to retire who want to retire or stop working a second job. Read the report and find out that this is actually a very positive signal. But, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reference something else that was in the newspapers. The papers are filled with scandal about the nuclear weapons program. The real scandal is not the cheating or drug use by people with their finger on the nuclear button. The scandal is that these people are there on the job at all, with these nuclear weapons; jobs and nuclear weapons that should no longer exist. Don't get me wrong. The alleged drug use by the people who stand watch daily with a finger on the nuclear trigger, or that were cheating on their proficiency exams, is outrageous, but it is scandalous that we are frozen in time linked to a nuclear Cold War past and committed to wildly wasteful spending. These are weapons that have never been used in 69 years, that did not deter the 9/11 attackers, and cannot help us in our major strategic challenges today. They have never been used in battle since World War II, but they have almost been used by miscalculation and mistake. In Eric Schlosser's recent book called ``Command and Control,'' there are terrifying examples of what were termed ``broken arrows,'' nuclear mishaps. A nuclear bomb was accidentally released over South Carolina, landing in Walter Greg's backyard, leaving a 75-foot wide, 30-foot crater, leveling his home. Luckily, it failed to trigger the nuclear explosion. In North Carolina, a B-52 fell into a tailspin carrying two hydrogen bombs, each 250 times more powerful than Hiroshima. There were numerous instances when our bomber fleet, which used to be on the runway idling, on alert 24/7, was prone to catching on fire while packed with nuclear bombs. A few years ago, there was a B-52 which flew across the country unknowingly carrying six nuclear-armed air-launched missiles. By no stretch of the imagination, do we need these 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert, plus nuclear armed bombers, all on top of our nuclear submarine-based missiles? We don't need a fraction of this weaponry. At most, we need perhaps one scaled- down system. There is nobody left to deter. We are competing in Russia in the Winter Olympics right now. A small portion of one of these delivery systems is all the nuclear deterrence we could ever possibly need. The larger and more complex the infrastructure is not just more expensive, but more prone to mistake. We are talking about upwards of $700 billion over the next 10 years in operations, modernization, new systems, new nuclear submarines. It is outrageous. It is dangerous. Let me put that in context. $750 billion is more than the Federal Government will spend on education in its entirety in the next 5 years. It is time for Congress and the American people to put an end to this.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are used to a world with gloomy news regarding the jarring impact and threats of climate change. We are experiencing wildfires in the Pacific Northwest this winter. The snowpack is a small percentage of normal, which is not just bad news for skiers now; it means lower river levels in the spring that will affect hydropower production, irrigation for farmers, and further damage to ever-troubled fish runs. California is experiencing its worst drought in 500 years--not really manmade, as some of my Republican California colleagues claim. Although it is interesting, as pointed out in the L.A. Times yesterday in an editorial: ``Funny, isn't it, that folks who question man's ability to affect the global climate are so quick to assign human causes to the drought?'' There are severe strains on the Colorado River Basin, and 40 million people are heavily dependent on that water throughout the Southwest. Last week, we heard about the massive penguin die-off due to changing weather patterns. Of course we have been experiencing the polar vortex and wild weather this winter. With all these bad signs, it was interesting to see a positive message emerge yesterday on the front page of The Washington Post about air pollution in China. To be sure, Chinese pollution still threatens, producing the most carbon emissions on the planet, which portend far worse climate problems in the future for everyone. It causes 1 million premature deaths a year in China and, in fact, threatens the health of west coast Americans, as we regularly breathe Chinese pollution that blows across the ocean. It is encouraging that China is taking steps to acknowledge the problem, to track and publicize the severe pollution levels when, 5 years ago, they asked the United States Embassy in Beijing to stop publishing that same embarrassing data. Now the Chinese Government is publishing the information itself and is even ranking the worst offenders. The 10 most polluted Chinese cities have air quality levels 6 to 10 times the pollution of the 10 worst American cities. The Chinese are providing realtime disclosure of pollution that is more ambitious than anything the United States did in the EPA's highly successful toxic release inventory that dates back almost 30 years. It is absolutely critical that China acknowledge the problem and hold people accountable for the pollution, but it is even better news that the Chinese are going beyond mere data collection, as they unveiled a $280 billion plan to improve air quality, including limiting coal use and banning high pollution vehicles. Isn't it ironic that the Repulbican leadership in the House of Representatives is determined to prevent the United States EPA from taking the next steps to clean up our dirty coal plants and protect us from the carbon pollution that is causing such climate disruption, all the while denying the science. One hopes that the United States will come to its senses while it appears the Chinese are starting to come around. The future of the planet for our children and grandchildren depends upon it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the farm bill conference report because it represented a missed opportunity to enact necessary and long-overdue reforms. Supporters of this legislation claim $23 billion in savings, but by setting commodity target prices at today's high prices, independent experts expect that as prices drop, this legislation would cost us more in the long run. The bill does have some bright spots. The removal of the King amendment and the inclusion of language cracking down on animal fighting are victories for animal welfare. The SNAP cuts are not as draconian as the version that passed the House last year. I am thrilled that the amendment I worked on with Representatives Polis and Massie easing restrictions on the cultivations of industrial hemp was included, which shows we are ready to look at hemp as an agricultural commodity, and not a drug. There are welcome investments in renewable energy and organics in this bill as well. On the whole, however, the bill falls short of enacting necessary reforms, and maintains the pattern of cutting SNAP benefits for our most vulnerable while spending taxpayer dollars on wasteful agriculture subsidies. In Oregon alone, 78,000 households will face cuts to their nutrition assistance as a result of this bill, while simultaneously the bill adds to the already-bloated crop insurance program and creates even more subsidies that benefit large agribusinesses and encourage farmers to farm the system, not the land. It continues loopholes that allow one farm to claim multiple subsidy payments despite the fact that both the House and Senate passed farm bills eliminating these loopholes. I am also disappointed that this legislation cuts overall funding for conservation programs, and fails to enact many important reforms that I have put forward in my legislation--the Balancing Food, Farm and the Environment Act of 2013--that would strengthen the conservation title. I was pleased to see the inclusion of language establishing conservation compliance, as well as enactment of a Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which will help encourage farmers to work together to protect water quality, water supplies or wildlife habitat at watershed or regional scales. Overall, however, conservation language could and should have gone much further to provide adequate funding while optimizing results and making it easier for farmers to apply their conservation knowledge to their land. On balance this bill represents the minimum effort that enabled its passage. It is fiscally irresponsible and continues the alarming trend of subsidizing large agribusiness while cutting benefits for our most vulnerable Americans. We can and should do better, and I will continue working to reform our federal agricultural policies to that end.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to a medical issue, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes on Monday, January 27, 2014. I support H.R. 2166, the Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act, and H.R. 3008, which authorizes the Forest Service to exchange a small parcel of National Forest System land in Los Padres National Forest in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to a medical issue, I was unable to be in Washington, DC for votes on Tuesday, January 28, 2014. I strongly oppose H.R. 7 and had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no.'' H.R. 7 is a thinly veiled attempt to insert politics into the doctor's office and private market, and to continue the GOP assault on women. It would effectively ban abortion coverage in new plans available under the Affordable Care Act, even for women purchasing plans in the state-based marketplaces who use their own, private funds to pay for their insurance. This bill would also place an undue burden on small businesses, which would have to carefully examine every health care plan they offer to find out if it covers abortion services, and imposes a tax penalty on small businesses who choose such private plans. Finally, H.R. 7 would permanently block abortion coverage for low- income women, civil servants, DC residents, and military women by codifying anti-choice provisions throughout federal law. Not only are these alarming policy goals, but I would note that they contradict the Republican view of government by importing government intervention directly into the doctor-patient relationship. It's bad for women, bad for families, and bad for business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad moment as we consider a farm bill that has the least amount of reform possible to secure passage. I am thankful that some of the most hateful and egregious-- like the King amendment--have been stripped out, but the savings from direct payments will be swallowed up by enriched crop insurance. My friend Paul Ryan is concerned that the safety net for the poor has become too comfortable a hammock. But this farm bill is now a lounge chair for rich agribusiness interests, who need it the least. It should be a scandal that there are more cuts to food stamp benefits while crop insurance is further enriched for wealthy agribusiness. The time to start is now to avoid another congressional grab bag that cheats the American farmers. Also, thank you, Trudi, for your years of dedicated service to Congress and the American people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I deeply respect my friend and colleague from Oregon, I have a slightly different perspective on this because I think the bill that is before us today is absolutely the least that could be done to get the bill passed. It has a number of items I do support, like specialty crops, which I have been working on for some time. I am pleased that organics have an opportunity to get to crop insurance. But this bill, as I say, takes, allegedly, the savings from direct payments that have been opposed for years and plows them back into an enriched crop insurance program. It cuts $6 billion for conservation. Yes, there are some improvements in terms of administration, but at the end of the day, it cuts $6 billion when land and water is under pressure and needs it the most. This is shortsighted. It is very likely going to cost a lot more in the long run for the reasons my friend from Wisconsin pointed out in terms of setting these targets higher. It is more generous in terms of rejecting a provision that was included in both the House and the Senate version to limit payments to individual farms to $50,000. The conference committee increases the limit to $125,000 and reopens a loophole closed in both the House and Senate bills, allowing the payments to be collected by multiple people. It is just one more example of where the conference committee that I think had one meeting and sort of massaged these things to put the pieces together to secure a majority on the floor, is not, in any stretch of the imagination, in the best interests of most farmers, certainly not for the environment, and nor is it for the American taxpayers. I respectfully urge its rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H.R. 3547, which will fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. The bill is imperfect, but it finally rolls back parts of the senseless sequester, and improves the Murray-Ryan budget deal that I've referred to as a D+ piece of legislation. While this bill is a far cry from regular order, it moves us away from the harmful cycle of governing in the midst of one manufactured crisis after another. Undoing the harmful and indiscriminate cuts for programs like Head Start and a modest increase for the National Institutes of Health is the least we can do. One of several bright spots is the strong funding to increase access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene for the world's poorest. This is an effort that I've been a part of for over a decade, and this bill will enable the U.S. to save and improve the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Even with the positives, this bill continues to underfund America and fails to help those still reeling from the economic downturn. There is much for Congress still to do. It's disappointing that this package doesn't restore unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed while at the same time providing lavish funding for nuclear weapons that we won't use or need. We must invest in our nation's infrastructure to create jobs and support economic growth. I will continue to work towards a broader effort in Congress to secure real change, and to rebuild and renew America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed legislation to weaken and fragment the already underfunded federal Superfund program. This was a step in the wrong direction. Today, joined by 15 original cosponsors, I am reintroducing legislation to reauthorize Superfund taxes on polluting industries; provide more funds to clean up toxic waste sites; and relieve much of the funding burden currently shouldered by taxpayers through general revenue funds. Across the country there are 1,321 severely polluted superfund sites, some federal and some private. These sites threaten humans with exposure to toxics such as arsenic, benzene, PCBs, mercury and a wide range of solvents, resulting in health problems such as infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia and respiratory difficulties. Passed by Congress in 1980, the Superfund program has resulted in the cleanup of more than 1,000 toxic waste sites in communities all over the U.S., freeing residents from health risks and fears that come from living close to toxic waste. In the majority of cases, EPA works with the parties who have been found responsible for the pollution and they pay for the cleanup. However, at some sites, those responsible for the pollution cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, and the government pays for the cleanup. Historically, the Superfund trust fund was used for this process, which was supported by taxes on petroleum products and chemicals. Because Congress has not reauthorized these Superfund taxes since 1995, the trust fund was depleted and the funding source for the cleanup of orphan sites has shifted primarily to general funds. The Superfund Reinvestment Act will reinstate Superfund taxes to their previous levels, including excise taxes of $.097 per barrel on crude oil or refined oil products, excise taxes of $.22 to $4.87 per ton on certain chemicals, and a corporate environmental income tax of .12 percent on a corporation's modified alternative minimum taxable income that exceeds $2 million. This legislation also includes language to guarantee that money from the Trust Fund is only spent on Superfund cleanups. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program by ensuring that polluters continue to pay. This will go a long way towards cleaning up America's most toxic waste sites, and helping to keep our communities and our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, no sooner had the United States recognized the failure of alcohol prohibition by repealing the 18th Amendment than the United States embarked upon another failed experiment in prohibition: marijuana. For three-quarters of a century, the United States has waged a futile attempt to prohibit marijuana based upon emotion and flawed science. Since 1971, the Federal Government has classified marijuana as a schedule 1 prohibited substance, like heroin, more dangerous, according to the law, than cocaine or meth. It declared in statute, contrary to proven research, that marijuana has no therapeutic value. Every day a million authorized users of medical marijuana reject that notion by using it by doctor's prescription to relieve symptoms like intense nausea due to chemotherapy, relief for veterans with PTSD, from chronic back pain, and neurological disorders like multiple sclerosis. New York has now joined 21 other States and the District of Columbia authorizing medical marijuana. Colorado is now allowing adult use; and Washington State is soon to follow, after strong approval by both States' voters. The revolution in medical marijuana policy has been led at the State level, usually as a result of popular vote. The facts are that marijuana does have therapeutic use. It is also less destructive to human health than alcohol or tobacco. Not one death has ever been proven from a marijuana overdose; yet we continue to disrupt the lives of more than two-thirds of a million people arrested for possession each year. We send billions of dollars to the hands of underworld and drug cartels. Many people know that it is easier for a 13-year-old girl to buy a joint than a six pack of beer. No marijuana seller, except in Colorado, checks ID or has a license to lose. Even though White kids use marijuana more than teenagers of color, African Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested and jailed. Our Federal laws are frozen in time, but the American public has moved on. Majorities now say it should be legal, and even more say the Federal Government should not interfere with whatever State laws are in place. It will be a while before Congress summons the courage to end the hypocrisy and irrationality of the futile Federal prohibition, but it should stop making things worse. For instance, it is insane to force hundreds of legal marijuana businesses to be all cash. We should end the grotesque punitive federal taxation for these legal small businesses. It should explicitly allow State-approved medical marijuana. While we are at it, we should allow the cultivation of industrial hemp, which a dozen States have already approved. Hemp products are perfectly legal in the United States. Why shouldn't our farmers be able to grow the raw material like they used to? Several dozen Members have cosponsored bipartisan legislation to help bring us out of these dark ages. These should be approved without delay. Sometime in this decade we will tax and regulate marijuana. Until we end the unfair discriminatory and costly Federal prohibition, we should at least end the most foolish and counterproductive policies.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are in a new year, and a new session. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and we should find a way to move past this empty, meaningless bickering. I will vote against H.R. 3811 because this bill is a diversion tactic by the Republicans, designed to scare Americans away from obtaining affordable health coverage and further undermines confidence in Government. This bill serves no useful purpose. The mere fact that this bill is only directed at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and no other agency that handles personally identifiable information, demonstrates that Republicans are only attacking the Affordable Care Act for political purposes; not to make it work better to give Americans the health care they are entitled to under the law. Not only is this bill a waste of time, but it detracts from the real work we need to do to strengthen our health care system. If my colleagues were serious about improving the Affordable Care Act, we'd welcome that discussion, but to date the only interest they have is frightening Americans away from a law that would provide the affordable, accessible health coverage to those who need it most. Just this week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that the increase in overall health care costs for the last four years is the lowest we've ever recorded in part as a result of the reforms taking place. We should be focused how to build on and take advantage of that trend, for example repealing the flawed and burdensome Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) and avoid the ordeal we subject the health care community to every year. Please let's stop this senseless exercise in futility and work together for a more productive 2014 and effectively provide the healthcare Americans are entitled to under the Law.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our interim agreement with Iran gives us an opportunity to unwind seemingly intractable, interrelated conflicts throughout the Middle East. There is no reason for Congress to complicate by further enhancing sanctions now that are already working. We have this 6 months to a year window to fashion a longer-term agreement. The fact that we are even talking with Iran is the most encouraging signal that we have seen in 34 years. Let's use this diplomatic window. There are hard-liners in both countries, highly suspicious, very negative, who would like to blow this agreement up. Unless we are willing to invade and occupy Iran, even repeated bombing will delay the Iranian nuclear effort by, at best, 4 or 5 years, maybe less. Americans have spent a trillion dollars, lost 4,000 American lives, with tens of thousands of wounded, in more than a decade in Iraq, and the country is still falling apart. Iran is bigger, stronger, and more sophisticated. I don't think you can sell that war to the American people. Congress should calm down and give diplomacy a chance. Let's learn about this important country, its 4,000-year history, and our past mistakes with Iran, and most important, our common interest. The Middle East has long been a simmering cauldron, with a conflict suppressed by a lid of repression held down by empire and colonial powers. That started to change a century ago with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and colonial powers trying from afar to influence human behavior by drawing lines on maps from European capitals, irrespective of religious, tribal, or ethnic realities. It set in motion a series of forces that are playing out today with tragic consequences. Iran as the dominant Shi'a force in the region could play a huge role where we share common interest, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for instance. The current situation is a result of partnerships between Congress and the Obama administration that got us to this point where Iran is willing to negotiate. Strong, effective sanctions would never have worked without careful, artful diplomacy that involved other countries like India to help us squeeze Iran. It has worked. Let's claim credit and move on to the next steps. We could start by trying to learn about each other. Let's promote an exchange between Iran and the United States with students, religious leaders, maybe even parliamentary members and Members of Congress. Let's focus on our shared interest, like Afghanistan, where we had earlier cooperation with Iran to help overthrow the Taliban. Let's work to make progress with the agreement and beyond. The Congress can do this most importantly by leaving it alone. Congress shouldn't meddle, Congress shouldn't muddle, Congress shouldn't give the Iranian hard-liners who don't want any agreement at all an excuse to scuttle it. We have an opportunity to improve the most volatile region in the world and Congress shouldn't blow that opportunity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and leadership here on the floor. When I first heard that we were going to be dealing with Superfund reforms and modifications, I was originally encouraged. I have been working with these issues on the Federal level, and before that, for almost 20 years, as a local official dealing with the problems of pollution in Superfund sites. I know that there are many challenges to the process and that it is chronically and dramatically underfunded. It is complex and cumbersome. Many of the participants are not fully equipped to be able to manage it. We have learned a little bit in the almost 30 years since the legislation was passed, but I am sad to say I was very disappointed because, rather than dealing in a thoughtful, bipartisan way to try and refine the process, we are actually taking a step backward. This bill would water down the requirements and provide fewer dollars, blurring lines of responsibility. This is not going to help. The Superfund tax expired in 1995. Since then, we have been shifting the burden away from the petrochemical industry that created these problems in the main, shifting it to the general fund taxpayer, a scarce and dwindling supply. This isn't going to move away from litigation; it is going to make it more likely, if it were enacted, by confusing people. Changing the rules that people have operated under is not going to be helpful; it is going to slow it down further. I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense has not fully met its obligation as the largest generator of Superfund sites in the United States. I have been on this floor repeatedly attempting to work through the budget process and the authorization process for us to step up and do right by people. I have got a harbor that was the staging area for three wars, and a significant amount of the pollution there that we are dealing with is as a result of that Defense Department operation. But what we are doing here would, according to the Department of Defense, disrupt the national priority scheme in which the most contaminated Federal sites are cleaned up first. It would increase litigation, delay cleanup, and waste already limited resources. Now, by pretending that somehow the State government is going to take the lead and compel Federal agencies to do things that may in fact be contrary to Federal law is not going to speed this process further. It is not going to make it easier. It is going to continue what is the problem. People today dig in their heels.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We haven't actually moved forward to try to work carefully, to thoughtfully, in a bipartisan session, refine it. We are going ahead and trying to superimpose on top of it things that will undercut that effort. Now, I am critical of what the Federal Government has done in some areas, but as a practical matter, local governments, by failure to zone, plan, regulate, and exercise oversight, have often been responsible for many of these problems. And they have, in the main, not stepped up and been aggressive with the strictest of standards. This would superimpose what are potentially less rigorous or, in fact, no local standards, be able to cost shift to the Federal Government without any interest in providing the resources for the Federal Government to do so. I would hope that our friends, if they are sincere, would spend time with people who are in the trenches and look for ways in a bipartisan, thoughtful way to refine the Superfund program so that, in the spirit of what originally created the legislation, we can do something that will do better by our constituents, better by the environment, and better by the taxpayer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the legislative agenda for this week was going to deal with the beleaguered Superfund program, I was encouraged; but when I saw what my Republican colleagues actually proposed, I was saddened and disappointed. Across America, we are plagued by a variety of severely polluted hotspots known as ``Superfund sites.'' Many are the legacy of past reckless or clueless business behaviors; Government, itself, shares responsibility as well. Local governments failed to properly zone and regulate businesses with toxic byproducts. Sometimes government created problems with the way it operated sewer systems, solid waste management, and military operations. The Superfund law, created in 1980, with a Superfund tax on the petrochemical industry, which caused the problem, would provide cleanup funding. It was reasonable at that time, but it has been frozen in place for almost 20 years. In 1995, the excise tax expired. Neither the program nor the problems have gone away, and having fewer and fewer resources has not helped. Sadly, the proposals the House will be considering this week would actually reduce the overall amount of funding that is available, undercut standards, and slow cleanup. The Federal Government has created some of these problems, mostly caused by military operations, which is the largest single source of Superfund sites in the country, but there are also situations like the TVA and its coal ash disaster. Instead of enhancing the Federal commitment and capacity, this legislative exercise is an illustration of part of the problem. It is an attempt to look like we are doing something, but it has no chance of being enacted into law; and if it did, it would actually make the problem worse. It is time for us to renew and refine the Federal commitment, not to complicate and undercut it. We should take a performance-based approach to zero in on what will actually accelerate cleanup in a demonstrable fashion and be able to move away from what has too often been a pro forma response. The Federal Government should, indeed, clean up after itself and not leave the problem behind. The military should place Superfund cleanup as a higher priority in its budgeting. We have seen recent studies about pollution around military bases, like Camp Lejeune, that has had a severe impact on military families and their neighbors, linking contamination to a series of birth defects like spina bifida and to childhood cancers, including leukemia. We should renew the Superfund tax, which I will be introducing in legislation this month. The Federal budget allocations should commit to cleanup, not passing the buck. We have settled into a program of sue, stall, and study as the inevitable result of a failure to work together to clean up, to protect the public, and to save money in the long run. I hope we will reject the Republican proposal this week and, instead, make a renewed commitment to find ways to make it work better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, also known as the Green 301 Act. Green 301 expands the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to encompass environmental effects. It provides tools to help prevent practices by other countries that cause negative environmental impacts to human, animal, or plant life or health, or to prevent the conservation of exhaustible natural resources domestically or internationally. The United States has helped to create the largest trade network the world has ever seen. As we leverage our commercial influence in the global economy, we can also ensure the countries we are doing business with are adhering to basic environmental standards. Green 301 would allow the U.S. government to impose penalties, including the increase of tariffs, on countries that: fail to effectively enforce the environmental laws of a foreign country; waived or otherwise derogated from the environmental laws of a foreign country or weakened the protections afforded by such laws; fail to provide for judicial or administrative proceedings giving access to remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country; fail to provide appropriate and effective sanctions or remedies for violations of the environmental laws of a foreign country; or fail to effectively enforce environmental commitments in agreements to which a foreign country and the United States are a Party. The promise of an open, mutually beneficial trade relationship with the U.S. is both a carrot and a stick. Green 301 lets our trade partners know that, not only does the United States expect our partners to adhere to environmental agreements, but now there could be serious economic penalties for countries that don't hold up their end of the bargain. My support for international trade agreements has always been predicated on the notion that agreements establish a fair, rules-based trading regime. The economy of my state is heavily trade-dependent. Oregon's iconic brands would not exist without strong international trading relationships. Oregon's largest private employer, Intel, is a product of the international market for high-tech products. Oregon and other states are greatly disadvantaged when our trading partners derogate from their environmental laws, which provide them with an unfair advantage and undercuts U.S. companies, which operate under our own strong environmental protections. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that trade remains free and open, but, in incorporating environmental and labor protections, also meets basic expectations of fairness.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, victories on the field are much sweeter when achieved by a team, dedicated in unity to achieving its goals. This week the Central Catholic Rams won the OSAA Class 6A Championship, defeating their archrival Jesuit 38-28. It was a fitting end to a 14-0 season and showed what can be done with teamwork and effort. In a truly dominant year, both during the regular season and playoffs, the young men of Central Catholic, their coaches, and their supporters inspired their fellow students and the community through their exemplary actions on and off the field. This is a season that can inspire great pride as the 2013 Rams join the 1952 and 1953 championship teams in the halls of glory. Go Rams!

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, last week I was proud to stand with representatives of the U.S. Chamber, the AFL-CIO, contractors, local government, transit, truckers, AAA, engineers, and environmentalists, all supporting my legislation, H.R. 3636, to update the gas tax. It inspired the predictable firestorm. There was a rant from a shouting head on Fox who thought not only did we not need transportation money, but thought that the previous money had somehow disappeared. Even the people who supported the gas tax said it was a horrible idea, like the article in Slate saying it is the best least-popular idea in politics. It provoked a torrent of reaction--some laudatory, some inflammatory. But it boiled down to basically three major points: Where did this idea come from? Well, it came from my decades of work in transportation, studying, listening to people from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon; North Carolina to Seattle to California. It was 10 years of experience that I had directing the transportation functions at the city of Portland as the Commissioner of Public Works where I saw firsthand the impact of poor and declining infrastructure. It is every single major independent study that says we need more money for transportation, not less, and it is a disaster that we are poised to slash transportation funding October 1 unless something happens. The question was asked: Isn't this unfair to lower-income Americans? Well, actually no. Lower-income Americans stand to benefit the most, people who are at the mercy of oil companies and foreign producers who don't know how much they will pay for gasoline next week, whether it is $3.35 as it was when I left Portland earlier this week, or $4.25. That is why they think the gas tax goes up every year, but it hasn't increased since 1993. Lower-income people are more transportation dependent. They work, in the main, by the hour. A traffic delay or deteriorating transit hits them harder because they have fewer choices. Terrible road conditions costs them money as it wastes fuel, it damages tires, and shakes their cars out of alignment. And lower-income people stand to benefit from the hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs that will be created. Well, my favorite question is: If this is so unpopular and such a remote possibility, why even bother? Well, it is remote, but it is not impossible. Look at the user-fee increase that Ronald Reagan could sign, a nickel a gallon in 1982. We need leadership today if we are going to meet serious transportation challenges and help jump-start our economy. It may sound quaint, but I think leadership is not what you do when an idea is popular. Leadership is what you do when it is needed. I hope Congress will lead on transportation funding.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the rumored sanctions legislation dealing with Iran may not reach the floor this week. This would be good news. It is imperative that we take this optimistic development that gives us a chance for a diplomatic resolution of the differences with Iran and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons to come to fruition. We must not give excuses to Iranian hardliners who hate America a reason to walk away. We don't want to confuse our allies, who we rely upon to make sanctions work, about our intentions. It is imperative that we move forward aggressively, thoughtfully, to make the most out of this 6 months, using diplomacy to make sure that the majority of Iranians who recently voted for a change in direction with a relative moderate as President are reinforced. This is a unique moment in history. I am pleased that it looks like the House might not screw it up.