Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Preparing Localities for an Autonomous and Connected Environment (PLACE) Act. This legislation passed the House last session as Section 5303 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and creates a federally funded highly automated vehicle clearinghouse to study the secondary impacts of autonomous vehicles and mobility innovation. The transportation sector is changing at a faster pace than ever before. New mobility options like Uber and Lyft, bikeshare, and scooters have already disrupted how Americans get around. The private sector has invested more than $16 billion toward bringing semi- or fully-autonomous vehicles to market, and research publications on self- driving technology have quadrupled over the past three years. Many predict autonomous vehicles will become widely available within just a few years. Done right, autonomous vehicles can solve some of the country's most vexing transportation problems while improving mobility for all. Done wrong, autonomous vehicles can exacerbate transportation's negative externalities, leaving communities struggling to make sense of an everchanging landscape. The PLACE Act will ensure that autonomous vehicles improve the livability of communities, allowing policymakers to understand their influence on land use, urban design, transportation, real estate, accessibility, municipal budgets, social equity, availability and quality of jobs, air quality and climate, energy consumption, and the environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue as part of a long-term surface transportation reauthorization package.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Bicycle Commuter Act of 2021. This legislation passed the House last session in Section 90436 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and would reinstate and improve the bicycle commuter tax benefit. The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever devised. Cycling reduces carbon emissions, provides enormous physical and mental health benefits, and is one of the most cost-effective modes of transportation available. Communities across the country have realized these benefits and substantially invested in building better bike networks and improving facilities for biking to work. These investments are one of the reasons that rates of biking to work have increased by more than one-third since 2000. Still, however, only 0.51 percent of workers biked to work in 2019. Despite these impressive developments, there is no commuter tax benefit for biking to work--like we have for parking and transit. First enacted in 2009, the bicycle commuter benefit was a tax benefit that employers could offer to provide a reimbursement of up to $20/month for expenses relating to bicycle commuting expenses. But if an employee elected to take advantage of the bicycle commuting reimbursement, they were not eligible to receive transit or parking commuter benefits. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the bicycle commuting reimbursement benefit through 2025, taking away a valuable financial incentive for people who choose to bike to work. With more employees choosing to bike to work, it is critical that Congress reinstates the bicycle commuter benefit and uses this opportunity to improve the benefit to reflect present-day commuting options. The Bicycle Commuter Act of 2021 reinstates the bicycle commuter benefit and changes the structure of the benefit by making it a pre-tax benefit, allowing employees to receive a higher benefit amount, allowing the benefit to be used with parking and transit, and adding bikeshare and electric bikes as an eligible expense. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and provide Americans with cleaner, more efficient ways of commuting to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Bikeshare Transit Act of 2021. This legislation passed the House last session in Sections 1210 and 2102 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and would make bikeshare systems eligible to receive funding to enhance related public transportation service or transit facilities. America is in the middle of a bikeshare revolution: at least 119 communities have bikeshare systems, supporting a network of more than 100,000 bikes. In 2019, riders took 50 million trips on bikeshare systems, and the number of trips and systems has grown every year since 2010. The COVID-19 pandemic has further increased demand for bicycles and bikeshare systems as people seek transportation options. Systems are operating in communities of all sizes from Los Angeles and Portland to Topeka and Conway, Arkansas. While some existing bikeshare programs received federal dollars to develop their systems, the lack of an established source of federal financial support has proved an impediment to many other projects. Since the term ``bikeshare'' is not included in federal law or described as a form of transit, bikeshare systems and departments of transportation are forced to operate in a gray area, creating challenges for funding and maintaining bikeshare systems. This legislation makes bikeshare systems eligible to receive funding to enhance related public transportation service or transit facilities. Federal funding can be used for acquiring or replacing bikeshare- related equipment and constructing bikeshare facilities. Bikeshare systems will also be listed as eligible projects under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. The Bikeshare Transit Act will remove significant barriers facing new and existing bikeshare projects applying for federal funding while underscoring that bikeshare programs drive economic development and are an important part of bringing choice and adding value to America's transportation system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to include this legislation in a long-term surface transportation reauthorization package.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Road User Charge Advancement Act of 2021. This legislation passed the House last session in Section 5401 of the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2, 116th Cong.) and builds on the successful Surface Transportation Systems Funding Alternatives (STSFA) program to further enhance national understanding and competencies in collecting a road user charge. Increased vehicle fuel efficiency and a stagnant federal gas tax have encouraged increased demand on our transportation system without proportionally contributing to necessary maintenance and investment. In just a few years, the United States will no longer be able to finance our transportation system based on gallons of fuel consumed. Surface transportation faces significant funding challenges which have only deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993, has lost more than 71 percent of its purchasing power due to inflation and fuel efficiency gains. As a result, Congress has transferred more than $153 billion in general fund revenues to prop up the Highway Trust Fund since 2008. Without new sources of revenue, or increasing existing sources, the total Highway Trust Fund shortfall is projected to reach nearly $190 billion in the next 10 years. Two national transportation study commissions, authorized in 2005, named a road usage charge based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the most promising revenue alternative to the gas tax and the ``consensus choice'' for the future. Since then, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have operated or are operating pilot projects where drivers are charged for miles traveled as part of the STSFA program. The Road User Charge Advancement Act of 2021 would reauthorize the STSFA program through Fiscal Year 2025, increase the authorization amount to $35 million, and reduce the state match requirement to incentivize more states to participate. The legislation also includes annual reporting requirements to provide more frequent knowledge- sharing opportunities and provides special consideration for states that are collecting revenues in their pilots. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to advance this legislation as part of a surface transportation reauthorization package and provide communities with longterm funding certainty to meet their infrastructure needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, time is running out for America's 500,000 independent restaurants and their 11 million employees. This is the hardest-hit sector of our economy. We began our morning hour today listening to our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), and it is the lead editorial in the New York Times, focusing on the crisis for these restaurants. Independent restaurants are holding on literally by their fingertips. They are facing a new wave of restrictions that are necessary to deal with the COVID crisis that is rising. The talk of expanding the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP, absolutely misses the mark. It didn't work initially when it was introduced for the restaurants, and it won't work now. They can't afford to wait for warmer weather in the spring or a vaccine in the summer. They don't need more debt. They need a lifeline now. Otherwise, we could see the loss of up to 80 percent of our independent restaurants that form the very fabric of our neighborhoods. Luckily, there is a solution. My RESTAURANTS Act has already passed the House. It is a program that won't add to the deficit. In fact, it will actually provide more money to the Government. The cost is $120 billion, but the economic analysis suggests that it will save $248 billion. Think about it for a moment. That is logical because, instead of adding massive unemployment costs, having restaurants defaulting on their mortgages, being evicted because they are unable to pay rent, and the ripple effect throughout the vast supply chain for independent restaurants, from farmers, ranchers, and people who supply linen, for a few months of support from the RESTAURANTS Act, it will enable them to have limited operation, be paying rent, or keeping current with their mortgages, until later in next year when they can return to normal operations. It is imperative that we deal directly with putting money in their hands. Last week, former Vice President Biden, President-Elect Biden, said restaurants need grants, not loans. Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin said restaurants need grants; they don't need loans. We have a solution that is available. The RESTAURANTS Act, as I said, has already passed the House of Representatives. Over half the Senate has cosponsored this legislation. As we have heard from President-Elect Biden, it should not be a loan; it should be a guarantee. Secretary Mnuchin said restaurants need grants; they don't need loans. The House should follow up, but not with expanding PPP, more cumbersome loans. Send them that lifeline. Keep independent restaurants in business. Protect their 11 million employees and literally the very fabric of our community.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's kind comments and cooperation. Working with the ranking member, working with Dr. Harris, we made real progress here. Mr. Speaker, the cannabis laws in this country are broken, especially those that deal with research. It is illegal everywhere in America to drive under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or any other substance. But we do not have a good test for impairment because we can't study it. Now, Dr. Harris and I don't necessarily agree on the efficacy of cannabis, but we agree that this is insane and that we need to change it. At a time when there are 4 million registered medical cannabis patients, and many more who self-medicate, when there are 91 percent of Americans supporting medical cannabis, it is time to change the system. Our bill will do precisely that. We have a broad coalition of Members and organizations who support the bill, including those who do have concerns about cannabis. Specifically, the bill will tackle two main issues: research licensing and manufacturing. For manufacturers, it requires the DEA to license outside of the NIDA monopoly so we can study the products Americans are using. For researchers, it shortens the timelines, reduces unnecessary security measures, and streamlines approval. This bill will not only reduce barriers to medical research but all cannabis research. It is a narrow bill that fixes one of many broken cannabis laws. I want to hasten to add that this in no way negates the need to move forward with other areas of legislation, like we did with the MORE Act. But this is sort of a foundational question. No matter where you are, there is no reason the Federal Government should impede this critical research. One of the most moving moments I have had in the last 2 years working on this issue was in the backyard of a constituent in southeast Portland who brought together a half dozen families with children with extreme seizure disorder. The only thing that stopped those babies from being tortured was medical cannabis. They had to research it themselves. They had to formulate it themselves. At Oregon Health and Science University, they told me: This works. We know it works. We could go to the street corner and buy something, but we legally can't do it. Listening to those heartbreaking stories of the families, of what they had to do--they crossed their fingers. It sort of worked for them. But no family should have to do that. We ought to get the Federal obstacles out of the way of simple, commonsense research. It will make a difference for families across the country. We need to move forward, so there is no unnecessary dispute about cannabis, and get the job done. Support the Medical Marijuana Research Act Dear Colleague: We write to encourage you to cosponsor our bill, the Medical Marijuana Research Act (H.R. 3797). Regardless of your stance on marijuana, we can all agree that there should not be onerous federal barriers to conduct research and access objective evidence as to the medicinal properties of marijuana. Although more than two-thirds of Americans are living in states with legal marijuana programs, current federal law greatly limits researchers' ability to research this drug. This includes the overly burdensome registration process, redundant protocol reviews, lack of adequate research material and unnecessarily onerous security requirements. In fact, a 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report found that ``research on the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids has been limited in the United States, leaving patients, health care professionals, and policy makers without the evidence they need to make sound decisions regarding the use of cannabis and cannabinoids. This lack of evidence-based information on the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids poses a public health risk.'' We could not agree more. The Medical Marijuana Research Act will reduce many of the barriers to conducting legitimate medical marijuana research. First, the bill streamlines the burdensome and often duplicative licensure process for researchers seeking to conduct marijuana research, while still maintaining all necessary safeguards against misuse and abuse. Second, it addresses the woefully inadequate, both in quantity and quality, supply of medical-grade marijuana available for use in such research. Finally, it requires, within five years of enactment, a report by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on the status and results of the then-available body of research on marijuana. Irrespective of where one falls on the ideological spectrum with respect to further legalization, we can all agree that the American people deserve to know what's going on with marijuana. The United States leads the world in biomedical research. It is therefore unconscionable that the federal government stands as the chief impediment to legitimate medical research that will ensure American physicians, patients, purchasers, and constituents have access to the information they need to make an informed decision about marijuana. Sincerely, Earl Blumenauer, Member of Congress. Andy Harris, M.D., Member of Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it was sad that my Republican colleagues were unable to understand why we voted to reform our failed prohibition of cannabis. They don't care about honoring the will of the people and they are unable to grasp the enormity of the racial injustice and damage by selective enforcement against young Black and Brown Americans. But the CBO score may have some other reasons for them. It shows that the MORE Act would reduce 73,000 person-years of prison time, saving $1 billion. It would increase revenues by $13.7 billion. It would provide $3 billion for job training and legal aid to people harmed by the war on drugs. While doing all of this, it would reduce the Federal deficit by $7.344 billion. Even if you don't care about reducing the damage to Black and Brown Americans or honoring the will of the people, the economics make it clear: Once again, the people are right, and the policy deserves strong congressional support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have been honored to know and work around Greg Walden for 40 years. It is kind of scary to think about that. He came to public service honestly. I was privileged to serve with his father in the Oregon State Legislature when Greg started as a staff member in the State senate. He was bright, capable, and committed to the people of the Second Congressional District, a special place in Oregon, and Greg was quick to always represent it forcefully, clearly, and effectively. We have shared some highlights over the years. I remember floating in the Dead Sea early in our congressional career. I was able to work with him in a small way on something that he is very proud of, the Steens Mountain Wilderness, almost 100,000 acres of cow-free wilderness. Now, some of us would have done it a little differently, but knowing where Greg came from in his district, that was a signal accomplishment. And we were able to work together in the Clinton administration. I was pleased to have one of the best field hearings I ever had in public service as Greg and I, and his wife, Mylene, and his son, Anthony, and our staff members did a 43-mile, 3-day hike around Mount Hood, that magnificent mountain that we share in our districts. We were able to meet with various interest groups and work together to lay the foundation for significant wilderness legislation that was signed into law by President Obama but that we worked together on a bipartisan basis to make possible. Recently, we were able to work on legislation that almost nobody paid any attention to. It dealt with a significant change to enhance the ability of physicians, particularly in emergency rooms, to know the family history of people there who suffered from opioid addiction. Again, not many people know about it, and it was several years and harder than I thought, but it will make a difference to be able to make sure that those emergency room personnel will be able to treat the whole person. It solved a problem that maybe shouldn't have been, but it is part of that nagging problem that we have, in terms of trying to work through the legislative process. And Greg was a master at that. I didn't always agree with Greg. Occasionally, we had some differences. But we often were able to find common ground to represent the people of our State in a way that they wanted us to. It is an honor. I will say, even though we didn't always agree, I always respected Greg in terms of his commitment, his intellect, and his sense of humor. It has been an honor, Greg, to serve with you 22 years--really? You have escaped, and I can't wait to find out what the next chapters in your career bring. I wish the very best to you, Mylene, and Anthony, and a long and prosperous next step.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would call my distinguished friend from Arizona's attention--whose constituents just approved legalization with a 60 percent margin--to the Rules Committee Print, which includes new provisions to ensure that employees working in safety-sensitive transportation positions regulated by the Federal Government would still be tested for illegal or unauthorized use of alcohol, marijuana, or other substances. Now, to be clear, no one wants to have people who are in these sensitive positions to be operating equipment, but there are several problems with the gentlewoman's position. First and foremost, as I pointed out in the course of my presentation, because the Federal Government interferes with the research in cannabis, and has for 50 years, there is no good test for impairment. Right now, I have heard from employers across the country, who are deeply concerned because as they test, and there is a trace of marijuana in the system, it continues for 30 days; long after there is any impairment. So we are having people's jobs jeopardized because we haven't done the research that would allow us to have a good test. The MORE Act, in the form that it is here, besides having the provisions that allow the testing to take place, would strip away the Federal Government interference with the research so that we can have a test that takes place. It is important for employers to be able to have this test. Employers want to be able to deal with their employees fairly, and they don't have a good test now. So people are losing their jobs. They can't fill other jobs because applicants fail drug tests. It is not that we don't test, the fact is we don't have a good test. And the Federal prohibition on research stands in the way of this. It is yet another example of the failed prohibition on cannabis and its unintended consequences. It prevents being able to make progress to be able to have effective tests and use them where they are needed. My friends talk about people having traces of marijuana in their system in terms of driving stops. There is no indication that just because there is a trace that that impaired their operation. We don't have the tests. That is why we need the MORE Act. That is why we need to reject the motion to recommit. Unless and until we do the research to be able to have effective tests to be able to deal with impairment, we are just chasing our tails. It doesn't solve the problem, and it avoids being able to take care of it. I strongly urge rejecting this motion to recommit, passing the MORE Act so we can do the research, have the tests that employers and employees want and deserve so we get out of this never-never land of speculation and be able to actually tell the circumstances and give people a guidance to be able to get the result that I think we all want. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I just heard my friend from Mississippi talk about, you know, we shouldn't be dealing with things like this because the time is not right. His voters just approved medical marijuana, one of five States that approved it. Arizona didn't barely pass it; it was 60 percent. We are not rushing to legalize marijuana; the American people have already done that. We are here because Congress has failed to deal with the disastrous war on drugs and do its part for the over 50 million regular marijuana users in every one of your districts. We are here because we failed the parents of babies with extreme seizure disorders and why 10 States have stepped up, because the only thing that stops those babies from being tortured is medical cannabis. That is why 10 states have approved provisions like that. We are here because Congress has failed to deal with our veterans, whose wounds, seen and unseen, will give them opioids, but we don't deal with giving them access to something, as Representative Correa pointed out, dealing with medical cannabis, which is safer than the opioids we give them, and they suffer opioid deaths at a higher rate than the general population. We are here because Congress has failed with research. We want to have a test for impairment. The 150,000 drivers for beer and wine wholesalers want to be able to test. But Congress has stood in the way of research. There is plenty of money; we don't have the authority to do it. Speaking of small business, we are here because the Senate has failed to follow through on a $17 billion industry that doesn't have access to financial services. It is an invitation to money laundering, to theft, to tax evasion, for an industry that is pitched by my friend's fellow Ohioan John Boehner, who is now a spokesman for the industry. I have worked on this issue for 47 years. I, too, have traveled the country. I have never met an American who feels that this industry should pay its taxes with shopping bags full of $20 bills. We are here because we have failed our children. Children in each of your districts can get a joint easier than they can get a six-pack of beer, because no neighborhood drug dealer checks for ID. They don't have a license to lose. That is why we want to have a system that regulates, to protect our children. Right now, kids are not protected. They are victims to a black market that you allow to continue. We are here because we have failed three generations of Black and Brown young people, whose lives can be ruined or lost by selective enforcement of these laws. This legislation will end that disaster.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to step up and do its part. We need to catch up with the rest of the American people. I want to thank Stephanie Phillips, Tara Sulzen, Willie Smith, Julia Pomeroy, Amber Ray, Laura Thrift, Jason Little, David Skillman, people who have been working with me on this for a decade. I am proud that we are at this moment, and I am proud that we are going to have an opportunity to approve the MORE Act and for Congress to step up and do its job so we catch up to your constituents.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this vote on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2020 is a historic moment for the millions of Americans caught in the tentacles of the failed ``war on drugs''. In the midst of growing national dialogue on unjust law enforcement practices, the MORE Act first and foremost centers racial justice and comprehensively addresses cannabis prohibition. I am pleased that the MORE Act has remained a critical component of House Democrats' plan for addressing systemic racism and advancing criminal justice reform. We owe it to the American people to pass this bill and I strongly support this legislation. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to establish a comprehensive federal drug policy. As part of that bill, Congress placed a broad range of drugs among five Schedules, based on the relative harms of those drugs. Cannabis was placed--temporarily, it seemed--in Schedule I, while a commission studied the plant to make an informed recommendation about how it should be treated. Two years later, the commission recommended that marijuana be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. However, for the past 50 years, that recommendation has been ignored, resulting in a decades- long war on cannabis that has damaged tens of millions of American lives. This racially motived policy has led to one of the most shameful episodes in criminal justice and race relations in America: the deliberate targeting of Black Americans for selective application of our cannabis laws. Too often, cases of low-level cannabis possession escalate to police violence, and Black Americans regularly face mistreatment at the hands of police because of cannabis. More than 99 percent of the American population will soon live in a state where cannabis is legally accessible to some degree yet arrests for cannabis possession continue in huge numbers. In 2018, the highest number of arrests were for drug offenses, with cannabis arrests accounting for more drug arrests in the U.S. than any other drug class. At almost 700,000, police made more cannabis arrests than all violent crimes combined. More concerning than the sheer number of arrests, is the racially biased enforcement of cannabis laws that is so evident in the stark disparity in arrest rates between Black and white people for cannabis possession. Despite similar rates of use, on average, Black people are almost four times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana. This difference can reach more than 20, 30, 40, or even 50 times at the county level. People of color are often robbed of their dignity in perpetuity, because having a felony conviction can impact the ability to get an education, secure gainful employment, or vote. Ironically, as the emerging cannabis market blossoms, the cards are frequently stacked against the very people most victimized by the ``war on drugs,'' who now want to become entrepreneurs in the legal cannabis market. After centuries of systemic discrimination in housing, employment, and education, Black Americans are far less likely to have or be able to raise the kind of money needed to get involved in the legal market. Additionally, disproportionate arrest and conviction rates make it particularly difficult for people of color to enter the legal cannabis marketplace, as most states bar these individuals from participating. Minorities, and Black Americans specifically, are now largely missing out on the economic opportunities created by legalization. Sadly, fewer than one-fifth of cannabis business owners identify as minorities and only approximately four percent are Black. The American people have recognized the need to reverse this tragic mistake. A recent Gallup survey showed that more than two-thirds of Americans believe that cannabis should be legal. This groundswell of public support has translated into actual changes in state law. We now have 15 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have legalized cannabis for all adults. Moreover, there are 36 states in which medical cannabis laws allow patients to legally enjoy the benefits of the full spectrum of the cannabis plant. Some states and municipalities have taken proactive steps to mitigate inequalities in the legal cannabis marketplace and ensure equal participation in the emerging market. The dichotomy between state and federal cannabis laws is the direct result of Congress ignoring the recommendations of experts nearly 50 years ago. The emperors who made and have kept cannabis illegal at the federal level were wearing no clothes--and the American people have called it out. We are now embarrassing ourselves by sitting by and doing nothing. This bill would not force states to make cannabis legal. If a state like Idaho wants to continue arresting people for cannabis, they will have that ability, as much as I may disagree with that decision. But by removing cannabis from the CSA, which is what this bill will do, we can remove this one tool of oppression. We can ensure that individuals who are acting in compliance with sensible state cannabis laws will not be in violation of federal law, while expanding cannabis research, broadening access to our veterans, and opening up banking opportunities. No bill is perfect, and the MORE Act contains a provision that is contrary to our legislative intent. Without hesitation, I am committed to correcting this language to ensure that the millions of Americans, especially Black and Latino people, who have been most harmed by cannabis prohibition can participate equally in this emerging industry. Equity, inclusion and opportunity are fundamental values that must be at the center of all federal cannabis legislation. This is not the end of the story, it's the beginning of the next chapter. This is a fight for racial justice, economic justice, and freedom. This policy is long- overdue. I have been working on this issue longer than any other politician in America, and I am thrilled that we are here today. I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and her staff, Samira Damavandi and Gregory Adams, who have worked tirelessly to advance racial justice on this issue. I also want to thank the many advocates, businesses, and individuals who have helped us champion the end of cannabis prohibition. Lastly, I want to thank my team both past and present: Willie Smith, Laura Thrift, Amber Ray, Danielle Cohen, Sean Ryan, David Skillman, Stephanie Phillips, and Tara Sulzen. This is a momentous moment and I am eager for the day this bill is signed into law.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his courtesy. Listening to my colleague from Arizona sort of made my head hurt. This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. What it does is it stops the Federal Government from interfering with what States have decided to do. No small amount of irony, her State just approved legalizing cannabis. And this legislation would prevent the Federal Government from interfering with what her voters decided. I have been waiting for this historic moment for a long time. I was in the Oregon legislature when we were the first State to decriminalize cannabis. I have been working from Bangor, Maine, to Santa Barbara ever since trying to end the failed prohibition of cannabis. It is happening today, because it has been demanded by the voters, by facts, by the momentum behind this issue. It is now a $17 billion industry. It employs 250,000 people. It is powerful in terms of economic development. More important, as my friend from Massachusetts said, this is an opportunity to strike a blow against the failed war on drugs that has literally destroyed hundreds of thousands of young Black lives. Black people use cannabis no more frequently than Whites, but they are arrested about four more times, and in some parts of the country, it is much, much greater. We are still arresting or citing 600,000 people a year for something that the majority of Americans now think should be legal. That is why the voters in this country took it into their own hands. That is why today, 99 percent of the American population have some access to legalized cannabis. This will help us set up a system moving forward. It will stop the interference by the Federal Government for research, for banking, for being able to promote an opportunity to make this work properly and not interfere with what voters in States have decided to do in the best interest of their public. I really appreciate our being at this point. The legislation was carefully crafted over the course of two years with the Judiciary Committee. It comes on the heels of other legislation, like the Safe Banking Act, and we have research legislation that is moving forward. Five States, including Arizona, just approved it. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. It is an important step towards rationalizing the policy, towards racial justice, towards health, so that maybe the parents in my neighborhood don't have to formulate cannabis medicine to stop their babies from being tortured by extreme seizure disorder.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, that is why a number of States that haven't yet legalized cannabis have passed legislation to legalize that. This is an opportunity for us to right this historic wrong. This is an opportunity for us to turn the page and move forward without Federal interference so that we are not outsourcing the product development to Canada or Israel. It is an opportunity for us to realize the promise while we realize the notion of racial justice. I urge, in the strongest possible terms, for my colleagues to get in step with the vast majority of the American public, with what has happened at the State level, to be able to make this safe, affordable, and healthy, something that will make a big difference for people across the country. It is something for which time is long overdue, and I herald the day and hope that my colleagues will vote for it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. Madam Speaker, I am excited that this bill is finally making it to the floor. We have watched the support build while we have watched the case become ever stronger. As has been referenced by my colleagues, across the country, there are thousands of big cats--``exotics'' they are referred to--in terms of tigers and lions who are often kept by private owners in unsafe and abusive conditions. They are shown often bred by unlicensed exhibitors in basements or backyards. Not only does this cause suffering among these exhibit wild animals that are not meant to live under these conditions, but it does, as has been referenced, pose a risk to community safety. Since 1990, there have been almost 380 dangerous incidents involving captive big cats in 46 States and the District of Columbia, leading to some traumatic injuries--and even death. Too often, as has been referenced, it is the first responders who answer calls involving these animals, exposing police and fire to unnecessary risk. They are trained for public safety, not to deal with these huge and occasionally dangerous animals. State law is completely inadequate. It is a patchwork on this issue. Some ban private use. Others allow it with no questions asked. This is cruel and dangerous. Today, we are voting on a bill to change that. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friends, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Quigley--people who have spent time advancing this issue, and finally, it is before us. It will restrict private ownership of big cats, reduce breeding, and help minimize abuse. As has been referenced and needs to be emphasized, this is narrowly focused on privately owned animals with appropriate exemptions for zoos and universities and sanctuaries. It can improve the lives of big cats and protect communities when things go wrong. These cats were never meant to be in captivity. Unlicensed ownership and breeding is bad for the animals. It is bad for the community. It doesn't advance conservation or education. Madam Speaker, I hope that we will both vote today overwhelmingly to end the exotic trade on big cats and focus our efforts on real, meaningful conservation efforts at home and abroad. I think we were all just horrified by what we saw with the television series, ``Tiger King.'' Sadly, one would think that that would be enough to motivate the action. Having worked on this issue over the years, I had some opportunity to be familiar with some of the players. This is something that I hope now is finally going to end, and it can today with our vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Independent Restaurant Coalition who have been my partners on the RESTAURANTS Act that is currently being negotiated between the Speaker and the White House. This coalition has willed this legislation into effect. It is comprised of chefs Jose Andres, Nina Compton, Andrew Zimmern, Tom Colicchio, Naomi Pomeroy, Gregory Gourdet, Erika Polmar, Bobbie Stuckey, Robert St. John, and Will Guidara. Mr. Speaker, these key leaders have represented 500,000 independent restaurants across America and their 11 million workers. They are sort of the point of the spear for the 180-member steering committee who have extended themselves in an extraordinary fashion in helping craft targeted legislation. They make the case to the American public that restaurants--independent restaurants--are the cornerstone and the very fabric of our communities. It is hard to imagine your city or mine, Mr. Speaker, without these independent restaurants. For many people it is the first job that they get. They are representative of minorities, and they are disproportionately women-owned. They have an energy and a vitality. They provide an area for Americans to come together. In the time of COVID-19, we miss that opportunity to gather, and we need to take action to make sure that they remain in business. That is what the coalition has done. Uniting behind the RESTAURANTS Act, they have made the case to people all across the country. They have driven Members in the House and the Senate to cosponsor legislation--well over 200 in the House and 40 companion bills in the Senate--making the case that there is something that we can do. The need here is to have a tailored approach. Without something specific for independent restaurants, we face 85 percent of them closing their doors permanently by the end of the year. The restaurant industry of these independent restaurants are the hardest hit segment of the American economy. In April alone they accounted for half the unemployed. We have united behind a proposal of $120 billion in direct grants to restaurants. The PPP simply isn't working for them. It is too cumbersome; the time constraints don't work; and, as a practical matter, we don't need to change the format that we have developed. We have extensive research that documents if we are able to extend this $120 billion lifeline to the independent restaurants, then we will avoid over $183 billion of costs for unemployment and having these institutions file bankruptcy rather than paying their taxes. They support the supply chains in every community. That includes not just the restaurant workers and owners but deals with the people who supply them with the linens, the fruits, the vegetables, and the wine. This is an extensive supply chain that stretches throughout the local economy. The good news is that we have progress. The Heroes Act includes the RESTAURANTS Act in its entirety with the full $120 billion. Yesterday there was extensive discussion with our leadership and the White House. We had earlier conversations in the White House with leaders from the Independent Restaurant Coalition. I heard from Will Guidara from New York City about the interaction he had with Secretary Mnuchin, and President Trump was there as a part of it. This is something that we can do. We can come together, support this provision in the Heroes Act, and negotiate out in terms of the final package to make sure that we protect this lifeline for these vital institutions for all our communities. I deeply appreciate the interest and momentum that has been developed in both the House and Senate; the people who are stepping forward to help their independent restaurants and the members of the coalition; and, most of all, I want to thank the members of the coalition who represent this critical industry and a potential solution to those problems.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I commend our leadership, the Speaker, for again putting forward legislation to support working families, local government, and healthcare as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This updated Heroes Act provides for another round of cash payments, housing and food assistance, help for unemployed workers, and targeted relief for small businesses who need it most, like independent restaurants. I would like to speak on that for a moment because I am very proud that this legislation includes $120 billion from our RESTAURANTS Act for saving 500,000 independent restaurants and their 11 million employees. This sector of the economy totals $1 trillion when you deal with all those organizations, all their supply chains, and ancillary effects. Local, independent restaurants are the cornerstone of communities large and small, your community and mine. I think it is hard to imagine what life would be like in Oklahoma City or Cincinnati or Portland, Oregon, without those vital institutions. That is where communities come together. They provide a disproportionate avenue for economic success for minorities, immigrants, and women-owned enterprises. A restaurant for many of us was the first job, and it is an avenue for moving forward. They are, unfortunately, hurting more than any other industry. They are the largest contributor to unemployment. One in four job losses is in this industry. We have a chance to do something about it. They are the largest contributor of unemployment of any sector--one in four job losses. In fact, they were half the unemployed in April. Already one in six restaurants have closed their doors permanently, but this legislation provides relief for those who are hanging on by a thread. The evidence is that if we don't take action like this that is targeted for independent restaurants, we are going to have 85 percent of them close by the end of the year permanently. The Heroes Act targets $120 billion of our RESTAURANTS Act that would generate $250 billion in economic impact. It would support millions of restaurant workers, truck drivers, farmers, and fishermen--people who support this critical industry. It is not just the fruits and vegetables and the linens. Think about it for a moment, Madam Speaker. All of those are involved. This legislation would, by giving $120 billion of direct relief, provide $250 billion in economic savings by having people not filing bankruptcy and not adding to the unemployed ranks, but keeping them in business paying taxes, paying employees, and keeping those essential food supply chains going.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, independent restaurants are the true and quintessential embodiment of small businesses. What this legislation is geared for is the small, independent restaurants. That assistance is more important now than ever. It is sad that we have not had much bipartisan support in the House for this, although in the Senate there are 40 cosponsors including a number of Republicans led by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would see fit to vote for this legislation, vote to save independent restaurants, and be able to move forward in a way that will benefit every community across America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 991) to extend certain provisions of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act until September 30, 2030, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me begin by commending Representatives Sewell and Wenstrup for taking a leadership role on this program. Last year, they introduced this bill to reauthorize the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, which expires at the end of the month. They helped organize a terrific hearing before the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to be able to focus on this. It is imperative that the Senate act quickly on this bill and that we get it done before September 30. In today's political climate, it is important to highlight those few areas of bipartisan consensus. The CBTPA has historically enjoyed that bipartisan and bicameral support, in part because of the shared history and close ties to the United States with the Caribbean Basin region. There are about 13 million Americans who have Caribbean ancestors. They represent 4 percent of the American population. The Caribbean, in particular Haiti, played a critical role in the American Revolutionary War, where hundreds of Haitians fought for America's independence. Years later, Haiti would defend the French and become the first Black republic, influencing the rise of abolitionist and anti-colonial movements all over the world, especially here in the United States. Haiti's sacrifices and unyielding resolve continue to inspire millions. Sadly, the United States, under the influence of slave-holding interests, actively worked against this fledgling new republic. They were threatened by the specter of a slave uprising and Black independent government. The United States was hostile to Haiti for years, and worked to undermine its success. Rather than be a constructive partner to help this fledgling republic, the United States interfered, and more importantly, failed to embrace the emergence of the first Black republic. Now, there are some admitted problems of governance, poverty, and corruption in Haiti and in the region. I personally strongly believe that some of those difficulties that Haiti experiences to this day are the result of failures of American policy. That is why this Caribbean Basin Initiative is so important. It is an opportunity to continue to strengthen Haiti's economy and our working relationship. In 2001, after that devastating earthquake in Haiti, I joined a bipartisan, bicameral delegation to Port-au-Prince to demonstrate the ongoing support in Congress to the Haitian people, to understand the challenges they face, and demonstrate our commitment to work with the Haitian Government to assist with reconstruction efforts. Haiti, by design, is the primary beneficiary of the textile and apparel preferences under CBTPA, more important now than ever. Recently, we heard firsthand at our hearing from witnesses and some of our colleagues, including Congresswoman Sewell, about the development challenges that persist in the region. Like any good trading relationship, we will continue to work to improve labor conditions, political stability, and expand economic development to all countries in the region. Passing this reauthorization is an important step toward those goals. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I urge the Senate to act quickly to extend the bipartisan program without delay. It is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to the country and to ourselves that despite many of the challenges, there are things we can do working together to improve the conditions. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who has played an instrumental role in this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close so I will defer to my colleague from Ohio. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the shock of the loss of Justice Ginsburg and the stunning hypocrisy of Republicans who denied Judge Garland even a hearing because a year was not enough time rush to jam through another Trump appointment. The devastating national disasters of the Oregon and California fires and Trump's failure to respond to the COVID health and economic disasters are a stunning backdrop to the work we have before us. We have a chance to take steps in this Congress that in normal times would be historic reforms working with you, Madam Speaker on legislation to reform our hopelessly outdated marijuana legislation. We have a chance to pass legislation that would rescue 500,000 independent restaurants, who are at risk of going out of business if we don't take steps now. And these are bipartisan initiatives. Congress ought to do what it can moving forward where it can cooperate. Who knows, it might become habit forming.