Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I appreciate him framing the difference that the legislation makes. That's why, in a sense, I welcome the 31st running of this soap opera here on the floor of the House, where our Republican colleagues have attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It would have a little more credibility if they actually had a meaningful alternative that would take the place, that would do the things that this legislation is in the process of doing. Bear in mind that this legislation, over the course of the next 20 years, is going to reduce overall government spending by over $1 trillion. It reforms Medicare, not by slashing benefits to senior citizens, but by changing the priorities and the overpayment for Medicare Advantage, which does shift, as my colleagues say, a half- trillion dollars, but it uses it to reform Medicare and pay for medical benefits for the American public. What my friends on the other side of the aisle don't say is that they take the half trillion dollars, but they don't invest it in strengthening Medicare, they use it in their budget--the same $500 billion--to finance tax cuts for Americans who need them the least. The wealthiest, most well off Americans use this $500 billion for additional tax cuts. What we have done is to move forward, and it has nothing to do with broccoli, because if you don't happen to like broccoli, you don't have to eat it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. What's different is that, under this system, no one can force the rest of us to buy their broccoli. Unfortunately, the American health care system now is forcing many of us to pay for the uninsured--60 percent of whom go to an emergency room or a doctor's office every year. That's why Governor Romney had a mandate, or a tax--or whatever you call it--to be able to move this forward. That's what the legislation is modeled on. It's making a difference already for Americans in terms of young people on their parents' coverage, small businesses, more than one-third of a million who have been able to have tax credits to extend health care, and there's more along the way. The more we debate this, the more the American public understands the benefits of the legislation, and the more the support grows.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, there's no small amount of irony that we are having this discussion today. It's on the anniversary of President Eisenhower signing into law the National Defense Highway Act. This weekend will be the 150th anniversary of the Transcontinental Railroad Act, signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. There was an era when Republicans believed in infrastructure and development. In fact, for most of our history, actually, infrastructure has not been partisan. It's been something that people on this House floor could come together to work on. There would be differences, to be sure. But for the 20 years that I've been involved with this issue, we've been working to broaden our view of how to make transportation work better, involve citizens, more flexibility, make the dollars stretch. This came crashing to a halt with this Congress. Now the bill that's going to come before us, I will very reluctantly vote in favor of it in part because of what's not in it. Remember, our Republican colleagues tried to force through a bill which, for the first time in history, had never had bipartisan work that came out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that came out of Ways and Means. In fact, it never even had a full committee hearing, rush- to-work session. Mercifully, it collapsed before it came to the floor. And one of the reasons I'll vote for this bill is because what the Republicans wanted has been rejected. Remember, they wanted to take away all the funding guarantees for transit. Working with the Senate, we were able to resist that effort. They wanted to gut environmental protections. And while you're going to find that there are some problems with this legislation, at least it's not as bad as what our Republican colleagues wanted. They wanted to completely eliminate the guarantees for transportation enhancements, for bikes and pedestrians. They were even going to eliminate the wildly popular Safe Routes to School bill. Well, most of that has been retained, although they were successful in gutting the provisions, for some reason, for Safe Routes to School. We have a bill that actually is a little higher in terms of the funding level than what the Republicans wanted, and it is at least going to be guaranteed for 2 years. It has some provisions that are important to those of us who have rural schools, Oregon among them. It's going to make a big difference. Putting this extraneous provision in is going to help. A little help in terms of student loans. And we worked in the finance title to be able to have the money come from something that's actually going to make it more likely that we stabilize some private pension programs. So it's not without merit. There are important things here. But the main reason to vote for it is because we've been able, working with the Senate, to resist what the Republicans attempted to inflict on the House and the American people. But make no mistake, it is not a bill to be proud of. As I mentioned, it dramatically reduces the funding for the transportation enhancements. There is no rail title. There will be reductions in citizen opportunities for environmental protection and participation. It is, sadly, a missed opportunity that didn't need to happen. They could have allowed the Senate bill, in its entirety, to be voted on, and I'm confident that would have passed. Or wonder of wonders, they actually could have worked, like we used to do, in a bipartisan fashion. The last transportation bill under Republican control passed with 412 votes. Well, we've missed an opportunity. At precisely the time when America needs more investment in renewing and rebuilding, for transit, for roads, for rail, for water and sewer, there are a whole range of things that we should be coming together to work on. I hope that the American public looks very closely at what was attempted here in the last 6 months, they look at what we managed to stagger through, and that it is a wake-up call for people to be engaged.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have worked for 5 years with a broad coalition of stakeholders that's not partisan, that are committed to working together on a vision for how we're going to rebuild and renew the country, how we're going to revitalize the economy, and how we make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. If we're able to use this flawed process and sadly inadequate bill as a springboard, maybe in some ways it will have been worth it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against the House Privileged Resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Never in the 225 years of the House has there been a vote to hold any Cabinet member in contempt, and I will never vote to support such partisan legislation that's nothing short of a race to the bottom for this House. There are serious questions that remain to be answered about the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program, infamously know as ``Fast and Furious,'' started in 2005 under the Bush administration. The Department of Justice is in the midst of such an investigation, but today's vote will do nothing to further that inquiry, and will instead slow and muddle the process. The charges by Chairman Issa of a conspiratorial effort by the Obama administration to strengthen gun control laws--are completely unsubstantiated and laughable on their face. When that became apparent, the Chairman turned to blatant political tactics, culminating in a Contempt of Congress resolution that was rushed to the floor. The Republicans and the National Rifle Association have created a web of constraints that make it almost impossible to restrict these dangerous practices that prompted the program in the first place. Fast and Furious was a flawed operation. Those flaws, however, parallel the biased, politicized investigation run by House Oversight & Investigations Committee Republicans. During the Committee's 16-month investigation, they refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings. The investigation was closed to the public. The Republican refusal to even allow those directly involved with the Fast & Furious program to testify before the Oversight Committee portrays their political motivations, not the facts, nor the thousands of innocent civilians in Mexico and on the border who have lost their lives from heavily-armed drug cartels. Attorney General Holder testified before the Committee nine times. The Department of Justice provided over 700 thousand documents to the House Oversight & Investigations Committee. Despite this broad cooperation, my Republican colleagues kept moving the goal posts, making it impossible to meet their demands. There was no end in sight. President Obama's decision to assert executive privilege was a well- reasoned decision to stop playing the Republicans political game. I believe deeply in the fundamental responsibility of Congress to provide oversight and accountability for the executive branch. We only weaken that authority by engaging in this partisan stunt Congress and the American people deserve better. We should reject this effort and do our job to find out what really happened.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. There's a transportation agreement rumored to be in the works that would be shortsighted in the extreme if these rumors prove to be accurate. Our problem was created because for years Congress and the last two administrations have been unwilling to deal meaningfully with the large gap of funding for transportation created because we rely on an outmoded funding system based on the number of gallons of fuel consumed. With more efficient gas and diesel vehicles augmented by more hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, the transportation trust fund is locked into an inevitable downward spiral. Like the looming Social Security deficit, the longer we wait, the worse it will get. Not this year, but over the next few years, we should temporarily increase and then replace the gas tax with a system that is based on the amount of road use. The new legislation should be laying the foundation for this transition. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The rumored agreement would also take us backward on enabling alternative modes of transportation. In the last 20 years of transportation reform we've used enhancement funding to get more out of the transportation projects. These include long-neglected and wildly popular bike and pedestrian safety programs such as Safe Routes to School. In a recent Princeton survey, 83 percent of the public wanted these programs maintained or the funding increased. They place an emphasis on intermodalism so that transportation modes work together and minimize direct conflict between truckers, rail, and commuters that can paralyze not just transportation but transportation planning. From what I hear, efforts to provide incentives to ``fix it first'' are being undercut. It's never as popular to maintain what you've got in face of the drumbeat of a few focused special interests for a new particular project. But ``fixing it first'' creates more transportation jobs, provides more safety, alleviates congestion and pollution, and has more overall economic impact. And it, of course, alleviates long- term pressure to create more roads that we can't adequately maintain. The bill before us also misses an opportunity to reform the system to have more performance-based environmental protections. We absolutely can make the process work better and faster. But the answer is not to gut the protections, which will only create more conflict and ultimately more delays. Projects take more time when they're not done right, when citizens are not involved with the plan, and the myriad of interests aren't working together. Involving the public in the planning process works. I'll never forget a conversation with a very conservative Republican mayor of Phoenix, who told me that it was only when they got the citizens working together on a balanced transportation program of transit and roads that they were able to get the resources and the momentum to go forward. I will be extremely disappointed if the legislation shatters the coalition that I have been working for years to develop for the big picture, the big programs, and proper funding that's going to be necessary if we're going to be successful. It will be wrong if we have a scaled-down 2-year extension that will make it harder to give the American public what they need, adequate resources that are sustainable over time, more economic opportunity, and more construction and maintenance employment. A good transportation program will protect the environment, enhance the quality of life, making our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. While there have been occasional steps backward in America's march towards equality for all citizens, progress and understanding have marched steadily onward. As a result, America is more diverse, and it is better for it; but we must continue to work hard to create a truly equal and just society. Discriminating against an individual based on race, religion, or sexual identity is deplorable and unacceptable. Historically, the LGBT community has faced significant discrimination, but the country has come a long way in recent years in attitude. Most Americans are more accepting regardless of one's sexual orientation, but there remain too many areas where society still must translate the attitude of most Americans into rights and protections for all citizens. LGBT students should be able to learn in a safe school environment, free of cruel bullying, psychological or physical abuse. The term ``bullying'' actually does not capture the behavior and the threat. Foster children should be adopted by loving families regardless of the parents' sexual orientations. Of course, most fundamentally, Americans should be afforded the right of marriage whether they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual--the same as heterosexual couples. I've been involved with these issues since I first chaired a hearing in the Oregon House of Representatives on antidiscrimination in 1973, right through today, in advocating the repeal of DOMA. I've been proud to work for equality throughout my career, but there remains much work to be done. In the name of extending equal rights to all Americans, no matter who they love, at a minimum, we should take the following steps: Most importantly, we should aggressively support marriage equality for all. The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and will guarantee that the Federal Government will recognize any marriage that is legal in the State in which it is performed; The lowest hanging fruit is workplace discrimination. It is long past time to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, which would make it illegal to discriminate in the workplace based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; Educational institutions must be safe places for young people to learn and grow without the threat of bullying or the risk of being denied the chance to participate in extracurricular activities based on their identities. We should pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2011; We must stand up for real family values and support the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. All parents who wish to adopt a foster child deserve the chance to do so no matter their sexual identities; Finally, I strongly support amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant same-sex partnerships the same rights and privileges as any other partnership. One of the most important milestones in this struggle was the endorsement recently by President Obama and Vice President Biden of marriage equality for all Americans. With renewed momentum and with continued hard work, we will not only achieve marriage equality for our LGBT friends and families, but equality and fairness in all aspects of life. Make no mistake, we are not striving just for tolerance; we are striving to make this country more equitable, just, and fair so that every man, woman, and child has the opportunity to pursue their dreams in a safe and accepting environment. Such freedom is the very cornerstone on which a livable community is established, where families are safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This bill, sadly, is a missed opportunity. It would have been an opportunity to deal with an all-of-the-above and a jobs bill, but it simply is not. We're in a situation where domestic oil production is strong. And what we are looking at, currently they're talking about giving out, encouraging more land to be locked up for the future, rather than using the 25 million acres currently authorized for drilling that are not being used by oil companies today. They would allow people to sit on land, paying only $1.50, $2 an acre for up to 10 years. Now, I think it's wise for us to be able to move forward to encourage energy production. There would be an opportunity here to deal more aggressively with incenting sustainable energy, clean energy, energy that will be with us for decades to come, rather than depleting existing resources and tying up leases in the future. This is an excuse to undermine existing environmental protections. Why, in heaven's name, would we seek to undermine tailpipe emission regulations that are already supported by the auto industry? It makes no sense at all. It is not wise to have language that orders the EPA to consider the cost of a clean energy rule, rather than the impact on public health, turning on its head longstanding priorities. I suppose you could diagnose lung cancer, but say, well, it's pretty expensive, so let's not say that it's lung cancer. Let's call it a cough. Mr. Chairman, it's important for EPA to make the decisions to protect public health rather than company profits, which are exploding in time. This is a missed opportunity. I suggest its rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of H. Res. 683, an overdue and needed resolution that expresses the regret of the House for passing laws that targeted Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. A previous commitment has prevented me from being present to vote in support of H. Res. 683 today, but had been present, I most certainly would have voted for the Resolution, adding my voice to the Sense of the House of Representatives in expressing regret for the unconscionable Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That Act stands as an example of the intolerance against which Americans must constantly fight to achieve the ideals on which our nation was founded. We can't ignore our country's history of exclusion and discrimination based on identity and country of origin. But today, the House's expression of regret for the past and apology to Chinese Americans is an important milestone in our nation's ongoing moral journey. This resolution, insufficient to repair the historical harm caused by such laws, does serve to recognize past wrongs and to remind us of our continuing work ensuring inclusion and equality for all. While I could not be present to add my solemn support to the votes in favor of the resolution, I wish to express my regret for this historical legislation. I join my fellow members of the House of Representatives in recognition of the immense contribution of Chinese- Americans to the success of the United States historically and today, and affirm my commitment to securing the rights of all who call America home.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today on Capitol Hill there are hundreds of nurses, chaplains and social workers, the people who deliver hospice care at the bedside, here to promote an honest discussion and careful analysis of how to help individuals and their families grapple with the final chapter of life. It may be the hardest issue in health care, and the fear that it invokes can be a powerful weapon. For most of us, the majority of health care we receive in our lifetime will be administered in those last few months. It's when we need the most doctors and nursing care, medical procedures and oftentimes in hospitals. But we know from scientific studies that when patients are educated about their treatment options, they make decisions that are not only aligned with their personal preferences, but shared decision-making relieves stress and anxiety. Ironically, sometimes getting less intensive help, like in a hospice, not only improves the quality of life, these patients, many of them actually live longer. From a public policy perspective, it's perverse that Medicare will pay for almost any medical procedure, yet not reimburse doctors to have a thoughtful conversation to prepare patients and their families for the delicate, complex, and emotionally demanding decisions surrounding the end of life. That's why I sought to direct Medicare, in the Affordable Care Act, to cover a voluntary discussion with the doctor about living wills, power of attorney, and end-of-life preferences. Helping patients and their families clarify what they want and need should be an element of any rational, comprehensive health care system. Despite our recent history, it's also a rare common denominator in health care politics because it's something that most people actually agree on. In fact, the majority of my Republican colleagues supported a similar provision for terminally ill elderly patients that was part of the 2003 prescription drug bill. I had a friend of mine, a Republican cardiovascular surgeon here in the House, who told me he had many end-of-life conversations; but, unfortunately, they were often too late. He wished he could have spoken to patients and their families when they could have properly reflected, not just when the surgery was merely hours away. During the early debates on the Affordable Care Act, I was confident that this was an area where we were making a contribution to improve the quality of health care, but it actually might be something that would bring us together because of the shared agreement. But, unfortunately, battle lines were drawn; and you know how the rest of that story went: death panels, rationing, forced consultation with government-appointed physicians. In war, truth is the first casualty. The same goes for politics. As a country, we have a difficult time talking rationally and thoughtfully about end-of-life issues. That's why it's so important that we have these dedicated people on Capitol Hill today--the nurses, the hospice workers, the social workers--to have this thoughtful conversation from people who do it every day. Their work to help patients and families can help Congress understand that the work is not finished. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the Personalize Your Health Care Act, H.R. 1589. Join me in making sure that the Federal Government is a better partner in helping families prepare for this difficult chapter.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend allowing me to speak on this. There is no one I have more respect for than my good friend from Tennessee. I had a great time working with him on a variety of things when I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But with all due respect, I think the issue here is what we're going to do to renew and rebuild America. For the first time in history, our Republican friends gave us a partisan transportation reauthorization. Never before have we seen anything like this offered up. There wasn't even a hearing before the full committee before it was advanced. It went right to work session. There was no effort to involve people on the other side of the aisle. We were given a piece of legislation that attacked transit, that scaled down funding, that was against the most popular programs, the ones that have the greatest local involvement, the enhancements. It was an environmental catastrophe. It was so bad that my Republican colleagues couldn't even bring their bill to the floor. They withdrew it. And so we had the ninth extension. We have been given a bill in the other body that, as my good friend from Minnesota pointed out, received 74 votes. It will give us two complete construction cycles. It does, in fact, accelerate environmental processes. There is a compromise, a bipartisan compromise, on the previous contentious area of enhancements. It is a reasonable way for us to go forward. Mr. Speaker, in contrast to this, we have a Republican budget that will not even fund the current obligations. It will cut out entirely the ability to move forward with any new Federal partnership for infrastructure. I think the motion to instruct is a modest step forward. I respectfully suggest that what we ought to do is not just approve the motion to instruct; we ought to approve the Senate bill and get on with business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak against this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I've been through this movie before as a member of the Budget Committee. This is not new ground. When it was first unveiled before us and I looked at the transportation provisions, I asked the Republican staff to pin down exactly the amount of money that is available. This essentially is what the Republican budget is, and it was not enough to meet the current obligations. It meant that there would be no new programming. And now we're bringing it to the floor with instructions to make sure that this is what the conference committee enacts. Let us be clear. What my friend and colleague from Oregon pointed out is that this is an opportunity for us to empower the private sector. Republicans and Democrats alike have been visited time and time and time again--first of all, you could hear from people in your district that the Recovery Act kept businesses afloat, kept people working, made a huge difference in every State in the union. Even though I agree with my colleague from Oregon that it wasn't enough infrastructure, but the contractors, electrical contractors, unions, and pavers were thankful for it to help many of them not go out of business. The list of people who oppose this amendment are not opposing it because our proposal is socialism. To the contrary. The Amalgamated Transit Union, the American Coal Ash Association, the American Concrete Pavement Association, the American General Contractors, the Laborers' International, the Portland Cement Association, the Carpenters, and the U.S. Chamber oppose this because it would add to the depression that we have in the construction cycle in the United States right now. We would not be able to keep pace, and it would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost. We had a proposal that passed the Senate with 74 votes--half the Republicans--that would enable us to have two construction cycles. The Republicans, who could not get the votes to even have the courage to bring their proposal to the floor--it fell apart, having been brought to the Transportation Committee. And I am a proud alumni member of that committee. For the first time in history, it was a blatantly partisan bill that had never even had a hearing. They somehow got it out of committee, and they got it out of our Ways and Means Committee, but the support within the Republican Party completely fell apart before it came to the floor. They were afraid to have it voted on because it would have been defeated because it was bad for America. I had a list of 600 groups when I was arguing against it in our Ways and Means Committee that thought it was terrible policy. We requested the Republican leadership to at least allow the Senate bill to be voted on, and they were afraid to do that. So we're in conference now merely because the Republicans just had a short-term extension, unwilling to allow this body--and I know there would be a number of my Republican friends who would have joined with us. Not a majority of Republicans, but enough that it would have passed comfortably, and we wouldn't be caught in this Never Never Land. My good friend from Georgia is concerned that his two grandchildren will be facing debt. Well, the Republican budget would force us to increase the debt ceiling. It will force us to borrow in order to have more unfunded tax cuts, even while it undercuts investment in infrastructure. This was admitted by the Republican chair of the committee in our budget hearing yesterday. He admits that it's not going to balance any time in the foreseeable future, and that it will require the increase in the debt ceiling. But there's a very different philosophy. It has nothing to do with socialism. My Lord, I thought that the John Birch claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist or a socialist was discredited. The partnership we've had with the highway trust fund and investing in America's future is something that is the opposite of socialism. It is a public-private partnership that has involved people at all levels in government in things that made a difference. I had a meeting today with 80 stakeholders primarily from the private sector, including environmentalists and unions and businesses and trade associations, who are apoplectic over the prospect that this House would go on record to shut down all new investment for the next year and further undercut the opportunity of moving a bipartisan Senate bill to at least give us two construction cycles and move forward. I agree that we need to be concerned about a debt burden, and independent analysis of why we've had an exploding debt includes unfunded tax cuts. Remember, Mr. DeFazio and I served here when the big fear was that we were going to pay off all government debt. What would the insurance companies do? What would the pension plans do if there wasn't government debt to invest in? This is part of the rationale for the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002, because we were looking at a $5.3 trillion surplus. Well, they solved that problem. They solved it with tax cuts, primarily for people who need them the least. Yet, we have serious problems with increasing health care costs, and now they are trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would actually, over 20 years, start reining those costs in. They had not one, but two unfunded wars, which my colleague and I from Oregon opposed. There is the collapse of the economy. It is interesting that Mr. Romney's adviser, when there was criticism of the Romney record in Massachusetts for debt and problems of job loss, said: Well, you know, part of that is that's not really a good criterion, because a lot of those jobs were lost in Governor Romney's first year in office, and you shouldn't count those. There is a certain merit to that, but if you use the Romney standard of not being accountable for the first year as Governor of Massachusetts, the problems with employment and the problems with the debt look much, much different, because this President inherited one of the worst situations in American history. It is important that we focus on where we need to go forward. We actually had a much higher percentage of the gross domestic product in public debt immediately after World War II. It's much higher than the debt burden today. How was that solved? Was it solved by cutting taxes to zero? No. They had much higher tax rates for 20 years until the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts. They invested in America, as my friend from Oregon pointed out. They invested in education for returning veterans, they invested in the highway, the transcontinental highway fund, they invested in America's future. That's what we should be doing now. The absolute worst thing, the worst thing would be to shut down investment this next year in transportation and infrastructure. That's why companies from A to Z oppose this motion to instruct. I hope, instead, we pass the Senate bill, get 2 years of construction cycle, reject this wrong-headed approach, and get on with the business of rebuilding and renewing America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes simple concepts are the most powerful. Since the beginning of my career, I have seen the power of historic preservation as a key component to a liveable community that is rich and varied, not just merely the historic character, but the mixed uses, architectural diversity, human scale and function, economic development, jobs, and the creation of value. Today, the National Trust for Historic Preservation will be announcing with their president, Stephanie Meeks, some of the most endangered places that we might lose, serving as a call to action. Our heritage matters. That's why for over 35 years Federal Tax Code has granted special recognition to help with the cost of rehabilitating historic properties, and for good reason. Over 37,000 historic properties have been rehabilitated, have leveraged $90 billion in investment, and created 2 million jobs. Historic preservation is good for the soul. People love the enhancement of historic properties, neighborhoods, and districts. It directly links people to who they are, helping us understand and appreciate our roots. It is very important that most people also appreciate historic preservation. That's why it serves as a magnet for tourists and other investors so that surrounding properties and neighborhoods can be strengthened. It also strengthens the economy. The investment and its ripple effects create more tax revenue and avoid the cost of rundown property and blight. As a local official, for years I learned firsthand that it is hard and expensive to deal with deterioration of the building stock in the neighborhoods in which they are located. Historic preservation is the best option for the environment. Recycling a building usually has more net environmental benefit than a LEED-certified new building. Historic preservation strengthens the community. A varied streetscape with a mix of uses makes that community safer and more resilient the same way that a forest that is composed of a variety of different tree species is more resistant to fire and disease than a monoculture of a single species. Historic preservation avoids that monoculture of the built environment that is numbing to the soul and depressing to the economy, which is subject to decline in the future as the entire area ages and deteriorates at the same time. We're watching this phenomenon on display in communities across the country as first- and second-tier suburbs deteriorate. As I mentioned at the beginning, Historic Tax assistance has been in the Tax Code since 1976. That's why it's important with all the justifiable pressure and concern to reform and simplify the Tax Code that we must retain tools for historic preservation. Indeed, I think it's time to modernize the historic property tax credit to reflect the many changes since 1976. Some of the most profound adjustments were made during the administration of Ronald Reagan, but it's been over 25 years since the provisions were addressed comprehensively. We need to recognize the difficulty with the current investment climate that makes it more difficult for people to take advantage of the tax credit as well as opportunities going forward to maximize the capacity for this important program. That's why I have introduced, with my Republican partner, Congressman Aaron Schock, H.R. 2479. It would provide more benefit to smaller-scale, Main Street rehabilitation. There will be a 10 percent bonus for significantly enhancing energy conservation and special incentives that can be used in tandem with the 33 historic tax credit programs in individual States across America. It's hard to think of a better value for strategic investment in communities that provide a sense of place in history with the creation of jobs and wealth. A modernized historic preservation tax credit will be a key ingredient for years to come--a building block for a livable community where families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important modernization of the historic preservation tax credit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This is such a well-oiled machine, the subcommittee galloping ahead, and I apologize that I turned my head. I think it is worthy to go back and deal with this amendment offered on behalf of my colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and myself. Today, America stands on the precipice of discovery when it comes to understanding how the human brain operates. These discoveries have huge implications for taxpayers--who cumulatively spend over a half trillion dollars a year on treatments for brain-related issues--and for some of the most pressing medical challenges we face. Scientific breakthroughs in neuroscience research have led to a higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans who are affected by neurological illnesses every year. Two of the most pressing examples of how outside trauma and events can drastically alter the structure and function of our brain are under the purview of this subcommittee: posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. These injuries can often be hidden from the naked eye. Almost one in five soldiers in the previous decade suffered a traumatic brain injury, and 15 percent of veterans are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. That represents hundreds of thousands of cases of cognitive and physical impairment due to TBI and PTSD that impact the lives and the loved ones of our servicemen and -women. Today, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and I, as cochairs of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, are offering an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Act to ensure that the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can truly be termed an epidemic. The amendment does not increase or decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires that no fewer than $35 million of the medical and prosthetic research account go towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury so that we can expedite a cure for active duty personnel and veterans suffering the effects of brain and psychological trauma incurred during their service. We are keenly aware that translating research into effective treatments and therapeutics is a long and difficult process. Every area of research undertaken by the VA to help our veterans must be a priority. But we believe that TBI and PTSD research must be further prioritized in this bill because we are so close to the finish line in our race to find the right treatments for these brain injuries that now is the time to dig deep and make the final push. Also, these items demand our special attention because their effects can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly diagnosed. Early detection and prevention preempts chaos, hardship and, indeed, in some cases, further loss of life. We must commit to better understand how the brain's 100 billion nerve cells grow, interact, and are altered by our environment. It's hard to think of a more fitting gesture from this body a few days after Memorial Day than supporting this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to finding effective treatments and therapies for these neurological impacts which plague our military personnel who dutifully serve our country. We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible as a missing limb but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future and relationships. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, a commitment from Congress to our servicemembers that we will continue to do all we can to develop new medicines and technologies to improve the lives for those in need. Again, I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee and respectfully urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment to offer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their outstanding work and leadership on this appropriations bill. It provides for our veterans, for our military families, and it makes great strides for greater energy efficiency on military installations. But I think it might be able to go farther. My amendment would strengthen military national security and save taxpayers money by decreasing the Pentagon's energy consumption. The amendment would simply align the House bill with the Senate mark for the Energy Conservation Investment Program, ECIP, by providing an additional $10 million for planning and design. The Department of Defense is the largest manager of infrastructure in the United States and the largest consumer of energy in the world, using over 300,000 barrels of oil per day and almost 4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That's as much energy as the entire State of Oregon, which I call home. The Pentagon operates 500 installations with over a half million buildings and structures worldwide. Given the size and scope of our military's infrastructure, it's not surprising to find that the Department of Defense accounts for more than 70 percent of all energy consumed by the entire Federal Government. I believe that the Pentagon and Congress have an obligation to taxpayers, who foot the Pentagon's bill of $17 billion a year, which is spent on gasoline and diesel fuel, to not only decrease the military's overall level of energy consumption through efficiency efforts, but to move towards greater energy independence from the petro-dictators. It's a necessity for our continued national security, that of freeing our military from the tethers of foreign oil as resources grow scarcer and suppliers more unstable. It's also an obligation for anyone who is serious about cutting our national debt. Every $10 increase in the price of petroleum costs the Pentagon an extra $1.3 billion a year on top of what we're already spending. There are alternatives. There are solutions. Congress needs to act by providing the resources and the authorities the Pentagon needs because ``supporting our troops'' means securing their energy future. In some cases, Congress simply needs to stand out of the way so that the Pentagon can continue making progress. The $160 million in the Senate bill is only a drop in the giant gasoline can if it is not accompanied by a significant investment in alternative energy sources for use by the military. Leaders in the Pentagon and our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan stand behind the idea of making the military leaner and meaner by reducing its reliance on fossil fuel. Speaking in reference to this amendment, Mike Breen, a veteran and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, said: As an Operation Free veteran and former captain in Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw firsthand that we have a 21st-century military shackled to a 20th-century fuel. All of our civilian leaders must match the military's commitment and stop putting shortsighted politics ahead of good policy. But some colleagues are tied to the past, and they've scuttled any and all efforts to provide for greater efficiency and alternatives in military vehicles. The amendment I offer today must be accompanied by future investment in sustainable fuels in the military, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that the only way to truly sustain a strong military and achieve energy independence is to stand up for these investments, not only today, but in future appropriations as well. I thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work. This appropriations bill puts us closer to where we need to be, and I hope they will join me in making this last push. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, taxation is serious business. How to pay for what America needs should be at the core of a thoughtful policy and political discussion. Unfortunately, going into a campaign ``silly season,'' it will be hard to have any thoughtful conversation. Here on Capitol Hill, we've been trapped in a twilight zone for years, making a reasonable discussion for revenue extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. The simple fact is that we are an aging and growing Nation. Our tax collections in recent years have fallen due to a combination of the near economic collapse and the maddening slow economic recovery, which, together, with the series of tax cuts since 2001, have reduced total collections to levels not seen since Harry Truman was President. And they continue to lag. As important as it is to do business differently, to rein in and reform defense spending, our bloated agricultural programs, and health care, the tax system itself must be addressed. More revenues are required to meet our needs, service the debt, and avoid more borrowing. Most Americans understand this. While no one wants to pay higher taxes, the public understands and will support them, if done right: balanced, simple, and fair. The worst tax is a tax on our future, the result of unsustainable spending and debt, coupled with tax cuts for people who don't need or deserve them. The second worst tax is the complex mess we inflict on the public right now. The tax system has a compliance cost to taxpayers of over $160 billion a year for a system that is unfair and inefficient. Now, there are only a few tax choices we should examine and discuss before we start arguing about the ultimate solution. We can only tax work, wealth, consumption, user fees, investment. We can also tax what we don't like, the so-called sin taxes, like pollution or tobacco. And finally, there are royalties for what, if anything, we get back when we give away public wealth like oil, gas, gold, and other valuable minerals. This is not an insignificant source of revenue, going not to some faceless government, but for the public. This is too seldom discussed in the context of paying for services or reducing the debt. All seven have advantages and disadvantages, but we should be clear- eyed about them, especially this year, when we will be considering before December 31, what the CBO says will cost $5.4 trillion to extend all the expiring tax provisions for the next 10 years. This would be a good place to start in reforming the tax system and collecting badly needed revenue. This should be done only after careful examination. Changes that we may want have to be done very carefully. They don't have to be done all at once or suddenly, because that can have unintended consequences. There are some areas where we need to continue current policy. Something that should happen as soon as possible is to extend the production tax credit, which is one of those provisions due to expire at the end of the year. This modest subsidy has helped jump-start alternative energy, particularly for wind; and it could be a model on how to do it right for energy and economic growth. It doesn't have to be a permanent entitlement, but merely help the industry come to scale. But the threat that it won't be extended has already shut down new project development and has curtailed manufacturing in the United States. Bipartisan legislation could be passed next week overwhelmingly, and I hope it's something that we would consider. Some areas need bold action, like the alternative minimum tax. This has been perverted into a grossly unfair tax on millions of American families and threatens tens of millions more. It will never be imposed. We will do everything we can to blunt its full effects. It should just be eliminated outright as part of this end-of-the-year process. Other provisions, like carried interest, where billionaire hedge fund managers get wildly favorable tax treatment on unbelievable wealth, cry out for reform. Using the looming deadline to deal with the basics, we can phase in adjustments over the full 10-year period to be fair in transition, avoid dislocation and continue to nurture the still-fragile recovery; and if we start now, we will be able to make commitments, hopefully, that will be honored by both parties over the course of the next decade. Done right, we can meet the revenue requirements for what America needs, simplify the system, reduce unfairness and complexity, and reduce cheating so that it is fair and more efficient.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Today, the House will debate the Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year. While nothing is more important than protecting America while keeping our men and women in uniform safe, the authorization before us today wastes too much of our Nation's precious wealth and represents yet another missed opportunity for badly-needed reform. H.R. 4310, unfortunately, highlights Congress's inability to make hard choices on defense spending. It opts for an all-of-the-above strategy and puts the funding of an already bloated military budget ahead of any semblance of fiscal responsibilities. If passed, the authorization would represent 57 percent of our total discretionary budget. It's clear to most people outside Congress that we can no longer separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Congress needs to get that message. Our constituents certainly understand. Last week, a Stimson Center poll showed that, on average, Americans feel that the defense budget should be reduced by 18 percent next year. Instead, this bill will decrease spending by less than one-half of 1 percent after 13 consecutive years of increase. While budget hawks and military experts agree we need to cut defense spending, this year's defense authorization provides $8 billion more than the cap for the defense budget set by the Budget Control Act, which both parties supported and enacted into law to solve last summer's manufactured debt ceiling crisis. Many supporting the bill will raise a false choice between defending America or rebuilding and renewing America, its infrastructure, and our economy. We can and we must do both. Spending too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things will undermine the very security at home we seek to buy through more military spending. Crumbling bridges and roads, failing schools, and a massive national debt all pose a greater national threat to America's power abroad than right-sized defense spending. We know how to do this. We have had a cascade of plans, ranging from the Cato Institute to the Bowles-Simpson to progressive think-tanks. All would meet our 21st century need for national defense while keeping promises to future generations here at home. In addition to ending the war in Afghanistan more quickly, there are many ways to decrease defense spending. Increased efficiency in naval deployment can reduce the need for battleships. We don't need a growing supercarrier fleet. The United States' 11 aircraft carriers add up to more than the rest of the world combined, and many of the countries that have aircraft carriers are our allies. The current level of investment in our nuclear arsenal with capabilities that correspond to no real military challenge makes no sense and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership either can't or doesn't want to work towards a balanced approach to reduce defense spending. This was illustrated by the response to an amendment I offered in the Budget Committee last week. Instead of making tough choices on defense spending, our Republican colleagues decided to give the Pentagon even more than they asked for and provide them this funding in part by eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, reducing benefits for 44 million more, curtailing Meals on Wheels, and eliminating school lunches for 280,000 children. The level of spending in today's defense authorization is absurd. But more shocking is what Americans are being forced to give up to continue funding the Pentagon at this level. Congress needs to show some leadership and ability to make difficult choices. That's why I'm leading, along with Representatives Lee and Frank, an amendment to cut defense spending for the next fiscal year by the $8 billion that would align the bill with the level already authorized and written into law last fall. We can and should go further, but at the very least most should be able to agree that Congress ought to play by the rules we created, not sidestepping them at the expense of struggling families, disadvantaged school children, and our seniors. Unless we are able to fix this bill, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman. As cofounder of the bipartisan Working Group on Export Controls, I want to thank my colleagues for their hard work to address this system, which was created in the midst of the Cold War but remained relatively unchanged despite the amazing advance of technology, which has rendered much of it obsolete. We have an opportunity for reform by supporting the administration's initiatives to deliver greater clarity and efficiency. I think your amendment makes progress. I have three concerns: Provisions, first of all, that deal with the requirement the administration may be called upon to specify--individually--hundreds of thousands of parts that will be transferred, a requirement that may be impossible to comply with; The amendment includes seven new reporting requirements of little use but taking valuable time away from enforcement; And finally, the amendment would remove the President's existing authority, in place since 1998, to waive restriction on satellite exports, limiting his ability to conduct foreign policy. I commend the good work that is in the bill, and hope that these provisions can be addressed as the legislation moves forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The Violence Against Women Act has been one of the great legislative successes of the last two decades. Since it was first signed into law by President Clinton, there is no question that it has helped millions of women by funding a variety of community violence protection programs and a variety of victim assistance services from coast to coast while providing a legal framework for protection. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the legislation in all subsequent reauthorizations because of the recognition for the vital nature of the services that are provided and the impact that it has not just on women, but on the children in these families. That's why it was reauthorized in 2000 and then again in 2005 under a Republican administration with President Bush. In this Congress, that tradition of bipartisan support continues in the Senate, which has approved a stronger version of the legislation developed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, cosponsored by both Chair Leahy and Ranking Member Crapo. Sadly, it's facing a decidedly different fate in the House. Once again, the Republican majority is advancing legislation by one of their new Members that is designed not to bring people together to solve problems, but to create unnecessary divisions. Their bill would actually roll back, for the first time, these established rights rather than increase them. The House legislation would fail to provide protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual individuals. It would fail Native American victims who are assaulted on tribal lands by nontribal predators. The bill would discourage immigrants from reporting sexual assaults and other crimes by placing unnecessary restrictions on new visa programs and not increase the emergency visas for individuals who immigrate to the United States on a marriage or fiancee visa and are subject to an abusive relationship. Not only does the House bill miss these opportunities, but it would remove the current confidentiality protections for victims who still had immigrant status. It would inexplicably reduce violence reporting requirements on colleges and universities. These are all tools widely used and supported by law enforcement officials to help keep communities safe by prosecuting criminals and protecting victims. The House bill would decentralize the Violence Against Women immigration adjudication process, bypassing examiners who are trained in domestic violence and sexual assault, instead, mandating additional interviews on battered immigrants. These are people who usually have very limited options to protect themselves. We should not complicate the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the United States. These victims of violence--usually women in the most difficult of circumstances--will be burdened, hindered, and discouraged from seeking and getting the help they need. The House bill would represent the triumph of ideological partisan politics over solid legislation with an opportunity for solid bipartisan support. It should be firmly rejected. Instead, the House should use this opportunity to build on a record of proven success, bipartisan cooperation, and a commitment to strengthening the protection of society's most vulnerable by using the Senate bill as a template. These victims and potential victims deserve no less. They, their families, and the communities they live in deserve no less. Domestic violence is an assault on the entire community and should not be tolerated. We should not retreat on the Violence Against Women Act, but strengthen it by using the Senate bill as a point of departure and reject the House version.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. This is no dispute in this Chamber that a nuclear armed Iran is completely unacceptable. That's why it was so encouraging to hear the Democratic whip say with assurance--and I think we all agree--that we are hitting Iran where it hurts the most. The news this weekend was filled with accounts of ``dark'' ships of oil tankers of Iran that are unable to deliver oil. They are having their oil trade significantly constricted. Their economy is being battered, their currency in free-fall. The President has assembled the broadest coalition we have seen uniting behind this diplomatic effort. We have had a range of people in the past who have been, I think, too sympathetic to Iran or at least have not stood up to them. But they are falling in place with us. Now we are on the verge of what hopefully will be encouraging diplomatic efforts scheduled to start next week. The resolution claims to support an endorsed diplomacy but, in fact, the timing and the wording undercuts that. Now is the time that we ought to be united and we ought to be focused. We ought to make sure that we have a positive environment to seize on the pain that is being inflicted on the regime, to be able to capitalize on the coalition and be able to make progress. Instead, we have a resolution--and these concepts have been bandied about now for several months--but we have a resolution that's rushed to the House floor, unsettlingly timed before the negotiations. It never had a hearing. It never had a markup. There was no opportunity to find out what, actually, the implications are of changing a standard from preventing Iran from ``acquiring'' nuclear weapons to preventing Iran from ``obtaining'' a nuclear weapons capability. These are not small matters, and they bear on the ultimate success of our coalition, the diplomacy, because every expert has concluded that an armed intervention, a military attack against Iran would be disastrous for all involved. And my colleague from Ohio quoted people from the Israeli Government who are convinced that military action would be folly. But the point is, we shouldn't be at this point. We shouldn't be casting a cloud over the negotiations. It's unnecessary. It's nonproductive. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this just as I appreciate his setting the stage in terms of why we're here, in terms of what President Obama inherited when he was elected to office. But another reason we're here is that the Republican leadership doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to reduce the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. Nothing is a greater illustration of this than the response to an amendment that I offered in the Budget Committee. On Monday, when we were dealing with this, I offered up to my colleagues: Instead of eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, cutting benefits early to 20 months, reducing benefits for 44 million people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children, I said, Wait a minute. Why don't we work together on something that we agree on? I've worked with the chairman of the Budget Committee in the past to try and reform agriculture subsidies. We got reconciliation instruction from the Ag Committee that takes it all out of the nutrition for poor people, for children, for struggling families. I said, Why don't we go to where we agree: crop insurance wastes billions, and direct payments go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them. We have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that goes to the wealthiest agribusiness interests. We've worked on that together. A majority of the Budget Committee, I'm sure, agrees. It would pass on the floor, and we could meet this objective and more without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling Americans. I've looked at those people in my community, and I can't imagine my colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens, have worked with the food stamp recipients.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The answer, in part, was that we can't do this. We do agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm bill. That's coming up for reauthorization later. You'll have to do it in the farm bill. That's where we deal with direct payments. That's where we deal with crop insurance. Hello? Where are food stamps authorized? They're in the exact same farm bill, and the Republicans have decided they're going to ignore this opportunity for a bipartisan compromise that will save more money and protect families. Instead, they're going to protect agribusiness and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. It's shameful and should be rejected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week an outstanding group of young men and women from Portland, Oregon's Lincoln High School placed first in the national ``We the People Competition,'' a contest sponsored by the Classroom Law Project. It is an extraordinary program that allows young men and women to dive deeply into constitutional theory and the legislative process, and understand what it all means for contemporary America in an all-too-often dysfunctional political arena. Over the years, it's been my privilege to work with instructors and students on these programs, to have watched them prepare for hours at a time, and watch them celebrate their successes. In the Portland Public School District, we are particularly proud of our high schools Lincoln and Grant, who have competed against each other for the State title for more than 2 dozen years, and consistently are strong contenders at the national level. Their achievements are testimony not only to the hard work and intelligence of the student competitors, but also to a dedicated core of teachers and citizen volunteers, often prominent judges and lawyers, and alumni of the program who continue their involvement long after they cease to be students. A special shout-out this year and every year should go to Lincoln instructor Tim Swinehart, local attorney Steve Griffith and his volunteer team, and the extraordinarily supportive principal, Peyton Chapman. As I met with the Lincoln team earlier this spring in preparation for the national championships, it was clear to me that this was a stellar team even by the standards of this terrific program. That they won this year with a team largely composed of sophomores makes it all the more an extraordinary accomplishment. I would willingly grant them voting privileges here in Congress. In addition to the dedicated coaches and volunteers, I want to recognize this year's winning student team. They are: Avery Ballato, Catherine Barton, Marty Berger, Hallie Blashfield, Ryan Bloom, Danny Brillhart, John Carey, Julian Dann, Julia Eckelmann, Michael Field, Natina Gilbert, Nikhil Goyal, Kendra Hong, Robin Jayaswal, Katie Kelly, Sierra Killian, John Kim, Emma Lane, Duncan MacEachern, William Mao, Olnita Martini, Evan Neuhausen, Sara Newman, Vicki Niu, Sammy Purnell, Justin Richter, Beckett Rueda, Emma Simmons, Sage Smiley, Nita Sridharan, Eri Stern, Mara Strauss, Molly Walls, Carolyn Wheatley, Ajeya Woods and Cole Zollinger. I urge my colleagues to become acquainted with their local high school constitution competition. I hope the day will come when Congress again gives the financial support to the Classroom Law Project for the civic education that is so important and so critical to preparing students to participate as citizens. With a stronger investment in the Classroom Law Project and programs like We the People, I believe we would all feel better about the future of the Republic.