Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And Mr. Chair, on that note I, too, commend what my friend from Wisconsin is doing. I look forward to the comments from my friend from Arizona. If we're serious about reform and saving money, it's time to move in this area. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, these are challenging budgets and difficult economic times. But unfortunately, there really are alternatives to slashing environmental payments and nutritional support in the farm bill. There is an alternative to reform and modernize. The last farm bill pretended to start limitations in payments. But exempted from the modest limitations in some areas were market loan payments, loan deficiency payments, and commodity certificates not capped. This means that entities can virtually receive unlimited title I dollars under the current law. Mr. Chairman, it's important for us, as we are dealing with trying to reduce the strain on the Federal budget, to do so in a way that is strategic. The amendment I propose would establish a $125,000 payment limitation in total. Now, this will save two-thirds of a billion dollars. Bear in mind that we are now cutting existing environmental contracts if this bill came forward. The majority of farmers and ranchers in this country still receive nothing, 62 percent receive nothing. In my State of Oregon, it's 87 percent of the farmers and ranchers. It's time to start with modest restrictions on government subsidies. There are a wide range of areas in this budget. As it's working its way through the House, we're going to see very dramatic reductions, almost a third in transportation. We sliced $1 billion from sewer and water programs to State and local governments. At a time of record high farm commodity prices, this would be a time to place this modest limitation. There's actually a question whether or not some of these payments even go to farmers at all. In 2009, some of the entities that received title I handouts--the Fidelity National Title Institute received over $4.85 million. Almost $3 million went to the Mercer County Abstract Company. The American Marketing Peanut Association received largesse from the Federal Government worth over $3.98 million. These aren't the small family farmers that I think all of us would like to support. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to be giving away $4 million of taxpayer money in 1 year to a private, for-profit company when I think what we should be doing is concentrating on the support for America's farmers and ranchers. We have the opportunity, with this amendment, to take a step in this direction. I would strongly urge that my colleagues join with me in adopting this amendment establishing a $125,000 overall limit, and be able to start saving two-thirds of $1 billion and send a signal that we're serious about reforming spending. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his kind words and thoughtful analysis. The approach that we are taking here is to put an overall limit of $125,000 in addition to what we are talking about. This would have only affected about 6,500 entities in 2009. It is an appropriate step forward. I hear some of my colleagues concerned about changing the rules for a few thousand people who are getting huge amounts of subsidy. You know, this bill will change the rules for tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers who would otherwise get environmental protections, payments for environmental programs. In fact, some of the existing contracts would be abrogated. Now, there are going to be lots of changes going on. I hope that we start now beginning the process of agricultural reform and making clear that we want to start by putting some overall limitation during a time of record high farm prices. There is never a good time to do it. I think the time to do it is now. I look forward to a spirited debate on farm bill reform. I hope at some point we are able to actually do some meaningful reform, as acknowledged by even the proponents from the committee. We have got lots of problems with the existing bill. We could do a better job. It is complicated. Well, this isn't complicated. This is straightforward and direct, and I urge an ``aye'' vote in support of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's words, and I appreciate his courtesy. I listened with amusement to my friend from Georgia talk about his concern that we're going to be importing food from overseas if we have some reasonable limitation on these title I payments. The food, which are the fruits and vegetables that the people in my State raise--and I met with a bunch of them this last week again--get zip. They get nada. We're cutting back on the research funding for them. We're cutting back on marketing. We're cutting back on helping them comply with the environmental requirements that they want to meet because they're good stewards of the land. We're making it harder for them to do the work of producing food for America. Yet we're having lavish subsidies for five commodities, which is where 90 percent of the money goes. If you really cared about protecting the food supply, we'd redirect it. We'd save this $650 million, and we'd put it where it would do more good.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. To having an agricultural policy that serves our interests, those of our children, our families; that gives more to farmers and ranchers and less to international farmers and huge agribusiness interests; that doesn't slash environmental support for American farmers but helps us here at home. There is a better way. There is actually bipartisan support, if we can ever see our way clear to getting it to the floor. This debate this week is an important first step, and I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly. This is a battle we can win on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston. He got dealt a tough hand by a really unpleasant, mean-spirited, unnecessary Republican Budget bill. There are real consequences for moving forward with the Ryan budget. But in a sense, this is the first debate of the 2012 farm bill. We have a farm policy that spends too much on the wrong people to do the wrong things. There are opportunities for us to rebalance the equities. Now you are hearing some debate about whether or not we should honor a WTO commitment to Brazilian farmers for $147 million a year. The only reason we're doing this is because Congress, in its wisdom, would not cut back on the cotton subsidies that go to American farmers, that are inappropriate and unnecessary. But instead of changing the system, we're paying Brazilian farmers for our cheating. That's goofy. And I think, at a minimum, we ought to remedy that. Put it into nutrition for poor women and children. Now I will tell you that all you have to do is ask the hunger advocates in your community. Every Member of Congress has people who are dealing with the problem of hunger and food insecurity in their districts. I commend my friend Mr. McGovern for his leadership in dealing with the issue of hunger at home and abroad. We ought to be dealing with it here and now. This bill that's coming forward ought to rebalance the equities with the cotton subsidies for Brazilian farmers. There are other remedies. But we ought to look at every single amendment that comes to the floor to change the farm bill allocation under appropriations as a first important step towards rebalancing and having a healthy agricultural policy----

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Today we are starting the most important debate of 2012 in Congress, the reauthorization of the farm bill. Now, it is true that we are just talking about the ag appropriations bill, and much of the reform agenda will be difficult or ruled out of order due to the restrictive approach of the rules, although in the past some of my Republican leadership friends have had no compunction about legislating on appropriations bills. But here we will be protecting large agribusiness instead of American farmers, ranchers, consumers, and the environment. This debate matters. Each point that is made on the floor or in the media, each vote that is accumulated against the status quo and towards change and fairness is another step towards reforming the one area that almost every independent analyst agrees is right for reform. From the far right to the far left, people agree it is time. American agricultural policy is frozen in time through the past collection of farm bills. It misallocates scarce dollars, it spends too much on the richest farming interests who really don't need it, and doesn't provide enough support for the majority of farmers and ranchers who do. It does not place a priority on the nutrition of our children, and it unleashes an assault on the environment. There must be a better way. There is a better way. Cutting back on unnecessary expenditures for the wealthy and the undeserving would make it possible to give a little more to the farmers and ranchers, the majority of whom don't get anything under the current farm bill. Now, most farmers and ranchers don't just want money. They would much rather have assistance to make them more competitive. There is far more that can be done by providing for important research to strengthen the production of food. More can be done to market American agricultural products at home and abroad, to establish farmer's markets. More can be done to protect farmers and their crops from disease and pests. And we can do so in a way that is consistent with our environmental values and our budgetary constraints. Farmers and ranchers as a group are some of the most outstanding stewards of the land and the environment we have in America. But we are looking now at a farm bill that is going to dramatically cut back the money to help them with environmental compliance, even requiring breaking some existing contracts. But complying with environmental regulations and changing policies is going to take some effort and in some cases is going to cost money. Why aren't we protecting the environmental programs and providing technical assistance to help these agricultural interests do what they want to do, which will not only improve water quality, wildlife habitat and air quality, but will put money in their pockets, supporting small and medium-sized operations? Then there is the issue of nutrition. By skewing the production to artificially prop up and make profitable sugar, massive subsidies for corn, putting big money behind it, instead of improving the nutrition for our schools, for example, we are literally subsidizing a diet through our tax dollars that is making our kids sick. Instead, we should be helping them both be well-fed and healthy, not just well-fed with empty calories, but with fruits and vegetables that will strengthen their bodies and the prospect for long-term health. But the people who grow food, like fruits and vegetables, are discriminated against under existing American farm policies. Help farmers and ranchers grow food, protect the environment, and strengthen the economy. It is a simple formula. It is hard to imagine a more pro-American agenda and one that Americans from all across the political spectrum agree with. It is time to listen to them, to work for them, and make it happen.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has called on Congress to oppose irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric toward Latinos, and instead to focus on fording solutions to the nation's most pressing concerns that work for all Americans. Today, I join with them in opposing irresponsible rhetoric and supporting the importance of civil discourse in the political process, especially on issues related to race and ethnicity. The current national immigration narrative misrepresents the Latino community. Some use the community as a scapegoat, and some blatantly encourage xenophobia for political gain. Like all Americans, Latinos care about and are deeply affected by the complex issues facing our nation: serious economic challenges, a flawed immigration system in need of reform, an unnecessarily complex tax code that often hurts the middle class, and an aging infrastructure that endangers the literal ties between us. Those who slander, dehumanize or disrespect any community in particular are refusing to solve problems in a thoughtful, constructive way. If we as a country join hands, move forward and choose to be respectful of Latino--and all racial and ethnic communities--we can solve our problems together. Every day, Latinos make substantial contributions to the economic, civic, and cultural life of Oregon and this country. I encourage my colleagues to seek out and consider the Latino perspective on today's issues, and to find areas of common ground based on our shared values and interests. I encourage them to meet with NCLR and other Latino businesses, non-profits and community groups in their area. Hearing the Latino perspective benefits all Americans. I consider it an honor to represent the Latino families, students, workers and constituents of the 3rd congressional district in Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 91st birthday of Stanley Sheinbaum, one of our country's most unique civic leaders. In his early years, Stanley served as a cartographer in World War II and was a student at Stanford, where he received top honors. He went on to become a Fulbright scholar and a professor of economics--first at Stanford, then at Michigan State. In 1964 he married Betty Warner and together they moved to Santa Barbara, where Stanley became one of the most vocal opponents of the war in Viet Nam. He twice ran for Congress on an aggressive anti-war platform and helped raise money for the legal defense fund of Daniel Ellsberg, the Defense Department analyst who leaked the ``Pentagon Papers'' to the New York Times. After the war, Stanley remained deeply involved in the causes that were dear to him. His many interests, accomplishments, and important relationships are too numerous to recount. A few of the highlights include the nine years he served as chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, where his leadership led to a ten-fold increase in contributions. In 1988, he was the leader of a Jewish-American delegation that convinced Yasser Arafat to recognize Israel and disavow terrorism. From 1991-93 he served as president of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners in the wake of the Rodney King beating, during which time he led the fight for justice and accountability, during that explosive period in the city's history. His many achievements are in a delightful documentary, Citizen Stanley, which pays tribute to his many years of service and activism. Today, here in Congress, we have the opportunity to wish ``Citizen Stanley'' a happy birthday as we celebrate his extraordinary life and many contributions, especially to American justice and foreign affairs. At 91 years of age, Stanley Sheinbaum continues to inspire the best of the American progressive tradition.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against both House resolutions that are the wrong response to the United States participation in an international coalition to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Libya. I do not, however, support an open-ended commitment. Additionally, my vote last week for the Conyers amendment to bar all funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of Members of the Armed Services or private security contractors on the ground in Libya makes clear I only support a limited U.S. role. Too often the greatest powers, including the United States, have failed to act when they could have intervened in a responsible way to stop the slaughter of innocents. In Libya, it was clear that there was a crisis developing and America, with our NATO allies, the Arab League, and the UN Security Council, appropriately provided limited support to rebel forces. That assistance included a no-fly zone that has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. It would have been an unfortunate precedent and undermined key global institutions if we failed to act with such a clear, unified call for intervention. Inaction would have endangered the recent display of democratic aspirations by so many in the region. Our failure to act would have emboldened the despots of Syria, Iran, Yemen and others, suggesting there were no consequences for murdering peaceful protesters. Our primary role in the NATO mission has been to provide operational and logistical support to other countries that have taken the lead on enforcing UN Security Resolution 1973. The Kucinich resolution is ill-advised, requiring U.S. forces to cease all operational support for the NATO mission in Libya within 15 days. I believe that we must not turn our backs on our allies and more importantly, the innocent civilians in Libya who want the right to choose their own government. Speaker Boehner's resolution, while not calling for an end to U.S. involvement in Libya, is factually inaccurate and attempts to rewrite history. I will welcome thoughtful legislation acknowledging that the U.S. has chosen to answer the cries of the innocent Libyan people, but makes clear that our commitment to their aspirations of self governance is not open-ended, and which clearly defines our goals and--more importantly--limits.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. There's no more important agenda item currently facing Congress than ensuring America pays its bills and honors its obligations. The accumulated choices of Congresses and administrations, past and present, have created the debt and the need to honor the obligations--like an unfunded war in Iraq that's going to cost trillions of dollars, or an unfunded Medicare prescription drug program both from our Republican friends. We're not going to default on our debt. With over a hundred of my colleagues, I signed a letter calling for a clean extension and offering to work with the Republican leadership so they wouldn't be held hostage to the most extreme members of their party in order to push through draconian proposals that have no chance of being passed, which would unsettle the markets and do damage to things that Americans care about, like the reckless proposal for ending the Medicaid guarantee to seniors and additional tax cuts that are unaffordable. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided not to treat this seriously. They're bringing a bill to the floor which they're not supporting. They put it on the suspension calendar so it had no chance of passage, and they think somehow this is constructive. Well, it's not. Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to be serious, to avoid taking legislative hostages. Maybe the Chamber of Commerce thinks that Wall Street is in on the joke that is represented by their legislative ploy here today, but I'm not certain the American public is. It's time to stop the games.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today I will vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep America and our men and women in uniform safe, this authorization spends too much while falling short in important areas. The bill authorizes $690.1 billion for defense programs in FY12. This level of defense spending is almost as much as the rest of the world combined--most of which is done by friendly allies such as NATO (approximately $350 billion). It also includes an additional $118.9 billion in specific funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a plan for a full redeployment from the region. I am disappointed that amendments to require a rapid and thoughtful withdrawal from Afghanistan were not approved. For me, this is reason enough not to support this legislation. The bill continues the misguided affront on civil liberties by further stalling the implementation of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' and requires that ``marriage'' for any regulation or benefit program at DoD means only a legal union between one man and one woman. This is a step backwards and unacceptable. It reverses the House victory from earlier this year that finally eliminated the unnecessary alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Similarly, the bill continues to fund the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) which has also been cited as uneconomical and unwanted by the Secretary of Defense. Embarrassingly, this authorization contains two key provisions that continue to tie the President's hands by restricting his ability to transfer detainees to the United States for trial in Federal court and to release detainees to countries willing to take them. It is absurd to think that the United States, which currently has thousands of dangerous criminals locked safely behind bars, is incapable of doing the same for terrorists. These provisions continue the Guantanamo quagmire which is ill-advised and a sign of failure at home and to those observing abroad. There are many positive elements in the bill, such as new rights and protections for victims of sexual assault in the military and increased access to mental health providers for our Reserves. I am pleased three of my amendments were included in the legislation. One amendment lifts the veil on classified immunity for defense contractors, a practice that exposed 36 of our Oregon National Guardsmen to toxic chemicals in Iraq. The other two will help protect our troops on the battlefield and save billions of dollars through energy efficiency initiatives. Their inclusion, however, does not offset the overall authorization which fails to reflect America's priorities or our national security realities. At a time when Americans are calling for reform, this bill--despite some positives--continues our operations in Afghanistan with no plan for withdrawal, ramps up spending and discriminates against our service members. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate can remove some of the provisions that do little to make America secure while we continue to spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against an extension of the PATRIOT Act because Congress should be refining and narrowing the scope of the Act, not extending it as-is, until 2015. There are real concerns on both sides of the aisle about granting the federal government too much power with little to no mechanisms for oversight by Congress. We are missing an opportunity in the House for bipartisan reform by rushing this extension to the floor. It's time for a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our national defense. Our intelligence community has the tools necessary to keep us safe without compromising our privacy. This hasty four-year extension is disappointing because the Act could be more effective if it included the auditing requirements for which many in Congress have advocated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to work on issues of reduction of greenhouse gases for over 25 years. I was Portland's commissioner of public works when we became the first American city with a comprehensive approach to deal with greenhouse gases. For 4 years I was pleased to serve on Speaker Pelosi's Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, where we had an opportunity to work with people around the world looking at climate impacts, dealing with dozens of hearings, hundreds of experts concerned with the challenge, the even greater problems that we are facing in the future. Yet, I would say that in the years that I have been working on this issue, I have never seen a better, more effective statement than what appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, an essay by Bill McKibben entitled ``See no climate change.'' He said, you should not wonder, is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak 3 weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, or the enormous outbreak a couple weeks before with the most active tornado season in America's history. You should not connect in your mind the fires burning across Texas, fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires in previous years. Or that the adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico are drier now than they have ever been, much worse than during the Dust Bowl. You should not wonder whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest, resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi, could somehow be related. There have been tornadoes before. There will be tornadoes again. That's the important thing. Be careful to make sure you don't let yourself wonder while all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity. Wondering why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan in the last year. Why it's just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. He goes on, because if you ask yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just gone through its second hundred-year flood in 5 years, or that the pine forests across the West of this continent have been obliterated by bark beetles, you might have to ask other questions. It's better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, who voted 240-184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that climate change is occurring, caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for human welfare. Propose your own physics. Ignore physics altogether. Just don't start asking yourself whether there might be some relationship among last year's failed grain harvest in the Russian heat wave and Queensland's failed grain harvest from its second flood, and Germany and France's current drought-related crop failures. It's important, Bill says, to remain calm. If the worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to remember that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in recent filings that there's no need to worry because populations can acclimate to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations. Bill says, I'm sure that's what the residents in Joplin, Missouri, are telling themselves today. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. It is important for Americans to think about how these pieces fit together. And Members of Congress should ask themselves two questions. First, even if you don't believe the experts on the danger of climate change, shouldn't we be taking extraordinary steps to stop wasting more energy than anybody in the world and exporting billions of dollars overseas to other countries for our energy? That's question one. The second question that I hope Members of Congress will ask themselves, what if 99.9 percent of the scientists are right and we are doing it to ourselves? [From the Washington Post] See No Climate Change (By Bill McKibben) Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week's shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn't mean a thing. It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas--fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they've ever been--the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they're somehow connected. If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest--resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi--could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air. It's far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods--that's the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don't let yourself wonder why all these record- breaking events are happening in such proximity--that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it's just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of year. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in the rising river as the water approaches his chest. Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the past five years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the past decade--well, you might have to ask other questions. Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline? Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that ``climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.'' Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don't start asking yourself whether there might be some relation among last year's failed grain harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland's failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France's and Germany's current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic. It's very important to stay calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to remember what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there's no need to worry because ``populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.'' I'm pretty sure that's what residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked yesterday at the exchange that occurred between our colleague from North Carolina, Patrick McHenry, and Elizabeth Warren, the woman who has been tasked by President Obama to establish the new Consumer Financial Protections Bureau. You know, to have a woman of impeccable academic credentials, a woman who for years predicted what was going to happen, had a potential solution, and who has been adamant in her support for trying to unwind this mess, to have her being attacked, to have her at one point being accused of somehow doing too much to communicate with Attorneys General who are trying to get a fair shake for homeowners who have been cheated, speaks volumes--not just, sadly, about the Republican chair of the subcommittee, but about the Republican approach. For heaven sakes, they shouldn't be blocking her nomination. They should be embracing it and working with us to make sure it never happens again.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. The more limited these indemnification provisions can be, the less likely that we're going to have contractors who don't really have the full financial incentive to make sure that they are acting in the best interests of our troops. I've seen examples that really give me pause. The inclusion of this amendment will help make that less likely, and I appreciate it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member and the Chair on a couple of items that we've placed in this en bloc amendment. One of them deals with the necessity of providing energy efficiencies that could save billions of dollars. It requires the Department of Defense to valuate energy efficiency benefits and recommend how to deploy them. Fuel is carried on expensive supply convoys that often travel through indefensible areas. One out of every 24 fuel convoys represents casualties. We're spending $24 billion a year to protect convoys to forward operating bases in Afghanistan, and 65 percent of all electricity on bases in Afghanistan is for air conditioning and heating leaky tents. Reducing this fuel use is a simple way to reduce fuel convoys, which reduces costs and casualties. And this amendment requiring a report on energy efficiency and onsite renewable generation will expedite energy efficiency deployment across the armed services. Additionally, there is an amendment that I have cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), that will deal with what happens with contracts that are issued on defense activities where the Federal Government has provided indemnification. We've been dealing with an issue that involves the Oregon National Guard where we really can't understand exactly what elements were related to this indemnification. We can't get the full information. When the government agrees to shoulder financial responsibility for a contractor's risk, it may be necessary, but ambiguities in the current law do not have, I think, the best interests of our troops or taxpayers in mind in terms of making sure that this is very limited in nature. This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress within 90 days whenever the Department enters into or modifies an indemnification agreement and explain why such provision is necessary.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1216, which rescinds funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers. The Affordable Care Act provides funding for the training of medical residents in qualifying health centers, which will strengthen the health care workforce and support an increased number of primary care medical residents trained in community-based settings across the country. This bill undermines that key objective and in so doing, undermines public health efforts, limits access to doctors in communities around the country, and weakens our medical workforce. Teaching health centers are community-based patient care centers that operate primary care residency programs, such as family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and general and pediatric dentistry. Physicians trained in health centers are more than three times as likely to work in a health center and more than twice as likely to work in an underserved area than are those not trained at health centers. Oregon's community health centers--29 clinics offer care at more than 150 delivery sites--provide high-quality, comprehensive health care to more than a quarter-million people across my state. Services range from medical and dental care to prescription medications to behavioral health care. Many centers also provide such support services as transportation and translation to ensure that everyone who needs healthcare can access it. This legislation, however, would undermine the ability of these centers to attract doctors and other health professionals so vital to providing community-based care. The Institute of Medicine reports that already there is a need for more than 16,000 new physicians in currently underserved areas. Unless we invest in medical education that closes this shortfall, it will worsen in future years. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that, by 2024, we will need 46,000 additional primary care physicians. This legislation makes it more difficult to close this gap. A recent study by Dartmouth investigators published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that beneficiaries living in areas with better access to primary care physicians had lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations. By eliminating funding to train doctors in community-based settings, this legislation makes it less likely that patients in underserved areas will be able to see a doctor or to get the care that they need. This legislation will worsen health outcomes in underserved areas. Rather than making refinements to improve the Affordable Care Act, H.R. 1216 merely eliminates funding. It fails to advance the key objectives of the law to improve healthcare while lowering costs and it fails to offer alternative solutions to meet these important objectives. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Commuter Relief Act, legislation that will expand the popular transit benefits program to provide commuters with options to avoid high gas prices, make it easier for companies to provide transportation benefits for all employees, and spur public-private partnerships for commuting purposes. Americans have made it clear that they want transportation options. In a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, 52 percent of Americans support increased funding for bike, pedestrian and public transportation programs. On average, transportation costs are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. As gas prices increase, many Americans are already changing their daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models. As we search for solutions to our congested roadways, increasing gas costs and expanding waistlines, it's time for the federal government to become more aggressive in helping to provide choices. For too long, the federal government has supported commuters who drove to work, but has not helped those who use other methods of transportation. Through the incentives in this bill, the federal government can support consumers who wish to use environmentally friendly, active transportation modes that save them money in the long run, such as public transit, carpooling, biking, walking and telecommuting. This not only makes environmental and public health sense, it makes economic sense: at $4 a gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion each year on gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an average of $1,825 in auto- related costs, conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic. The Commuter Relief Act will provide consumers with commuting choices, and make it easier for companies to implement commuting programs that benefit all employees. It ensures that the federal government is a better partner as we work to provide Americans with transportation choices, reduce congestion and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to support businesses in their effort to provide choices for commuting employees.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. We all understand the desire to do something about high gas prices, and we all sympathize with families in this economy who are struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline. But these bills will do nothing to provide American families with relief. They could threaten coastal ecosystems and the millions of Americans who rely on them. It's been a year since we watched the horror in the gulf coast. We found that the agencies who oversee offshore drilling and the oil companies that engage in it were not prepared for the disaster. And Americans will be paying for that failure for years. The administration has taken a number of steps to prevent future spills. Unfortunately, these bills undermine that process, making drilling less safe. Instead of pretending as if one of these terrible environmental disasters never happened, Congress should implement the recommendations of the oil spill commission. We should be pursuing legislation that will reduce our dependence on oil by investing in things that give American commuters choices, in terms of more efficient vehicles, transportation alternatives, alternative fuels. This bill, fortunately, will never be enacted into law. But I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any of the amendments to repeal unnecessary tax subsidies to the oil industry. At a time of record profits, it's adding insult to injury that billions of dollars are going to flow to the largest oil companies and make no difference to the consumer, no difference in the production of oil. It just adds to the bottom line of these international corporations. I hope that at some point the House will be able to deal with these subsidies, which, even our Republican Speaker recently said, should be examined. And I've had legislation ready and ready to go for months now, and I hope it gets a chance to be voted on on this floor.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to comment on the passing of a dear friend and Oregon icon, former Congressman Robert Duncan, who died last week at age 90. Bob served his Nation with distinction beginning with his service during World War II in both the merchant marine and the U.S. Navy. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, he settled in Medford, Oregon, with his wife Marijane. He was a State legislator from that community. He served two terms as speaker for the first time in Oregon history. From there, he went to serve in Congress, representing the Fourth Congressional District in southwest Oregon until he was persuaded by President Lyndon Johnson to leave Congress to run for a vacated U.S. Senate seat against Governor Mark Hatfield. In a campaign that defined Oregon politics for over a decade, Bob lost narrowly to Mark Hatfield in, to say the very least, a heated campaign, focusing in large measure over the United States' involvement in the war in Vietnam, which he supported and Mark Hatfield opposed. A significant development was the endorsement of then-Democratic U.S. Senator Wayne Morris of Republican Hatfield, which many experts feel provided the narrow margin of victory for Hatfield. Later, Bob almost won the Democratic primary against Wayne Worse when he ran for reelection 2 years later sending shockwaves that reverberated for a decade. I first had the opportunity to work with Bob Duncan when I was directing a campaign to lower Oregon's voting age in 1969, and he was a zealous supporter of engaging young people in the political process. In 1974, Bob again made history by being the first Oregonian to represent 2 different districts in Congress as he was elected to the Third Congressional District, which I am now privileged to represent. He continued for another 6 years of distinguished service, serving on the Appropriations Committee. After leaving Congress in 1981, Bob returned to private practice as a lawyer in Portland and Washington, D.C., and later served on the Northwest Planning Power Council. Bob had many passions in his life but none more important than his family. He was married 48 years to Marijane until her death in 1989, and later, he married Kathy Boe and found many years of happiness. Bob had seven children who survive him: Nancy, Angus, David, Jamie, Laurie, Bonnie and Jeanne. He was by turns a stubborn political animal, generous of spirit, with a legacy for courage strengthened by his convictions. He was a man of great humor, intellect, and conviction. He was also thrifty to an extent that is legendary to family and friends and many of his constituents. Until the end of his life I would still get letters from him with a series of 3-cent stamps and the old congressional return address on the envelope scratched over. But he was very careful with the taxpayer money in his Appropriations Committee to an extent that sometimes drove even his supporters to distraction. He leaves a legacy for courage, passion for justice, and accomplishment of decades of service, particularly a decade in two very different congressional districts that were united in the admiration of this dedicated public servant. He will be missed, but fondly remembered.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I voted against H.R. 1214, which would repeal the grants for the construction and expansion of school-based health centers. The Affordable Care Act included funding to expand school-based health programs across America so that we can provide better care for our children. Students who are healthy are ready to learn. School-based health centers provide our children with quality, comprehensive care that includes mental health services, social services and preventative care. A survey conducted by the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care found that when properly funded, school-based health centers help fill the gap in access to health services, especially for rural and underserved populations. These centers are accountable to their communities through an advisory board made up of local representatives, family organizations and parents. These programs bring health care to our kids and provide service without concern for whether or not they can afford it. In my state of Oregon, we are part of the School Mental Health Capacity Building Partnership to examine and improve mental health programs to be used in school-based health centers. As an early-adopter state for these centers, Oregon was selected to be one of four states to lead the way on this research. This important work, focused on tailoring mental health care to better meet our children and youths needs, relies on the school-based health center funding and will be jeopardized by this legislation. H.R. 1214 would prevent us from investing in our children and driving down future health care costs. At the start of this Congress, the only alternative the Republicans offered to the Affordable Care Act was a repeal-and-do-not-replace approach that is irresponsible at best. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but Congress should be focused on implementing the Act, and refining--not repealing--its provisions. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. My friend from Michigan said it right. There are no Federal funds for abortion under the terms of the Hyde amendment, except in the case of rape and incest. What this is about is how families spend their money and small business deals with insurance. It's part of a continuing Republican assault against people with whom they disagree. It continues the sad spectacle of using the Internal Revenue Service--I would say not just the use but the abuse of the IRS--to attack people with whom they disagree. Remember the spectacle of the Ways and Means hearing where they drug AARP before them and tried to have an investigation because they disagreed with them on health insurance? Yes, this would put government between doctors and American families. But it's not just about abortion under the Hyde amendment. Remember, there are some people who are against the rape and incest exemption. There are some people who had a shocking proposal to radically change the very definition of rape. There is a continuing effort to erode basic fundamental reproductive freedom, and this shows a tactic of using the IRS that I think is very dangerous. It does, in fact, increase the complexity and raises taxes on individuals who may, in fact, need these procedures that may, in fact, be lifesaving. The proponents may not agree with what a woman and her doctor decide but that should be their decision. This raises the specter of using the Tax Code and the Congressional investigating power in ways that no one should support.