Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the condition of our bridges, and I have spent, as I spoke earlier tonight, a lot of time on that issue and, in fact, opposed the so- called stimulus bill because of the lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly bridges. But in this case, I think perhaps there are some drafting errors in the amendment because it would preclude using these funds for rest areas, which I think is problematic. We have a crisis in terms of safe places for people to pull over, both commercial truck drivers and individuals. So I assume that the gentlewoman did not mean to preclude the use for rest areas. Also, I don't know Missouri well, but I know in the West, actually, we have used these landscaping funds when we do new construction or significant construction to reduce maintenance costs because we have high wildfire danger in the West and, if you can plant, basically, natives that will dominate, that are not tall, are not fire-prone, then you don't have to go in and mow two or three times a year in case some idiot throws their cigarette or cigar out of the car and starts a catastrophic forest fire. So, actually, leaving the discretion to the States to use these funds in that way, depending upon their conditions, I think is important. There have been a couple of instances in past bills where they went overboard with this kind of stuff. I think the current restrictions on the program are such--and there is no mandate for the projects like resurfacing or anything else that is new construction. And doing it, as appropriate, to state ``and including rest areas.'' I think, because of all those things, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On July 1, when we last visited the issue of a short-term extension for surface transportation, I bemoaned the fact that little progress had been made on a long-term, 6-year bill. I am pleased today that I don't have to use the same talking points. We did, through the actual legislative process--with lengthy negotiations leading up to it--pass out of committee a 6-year bill, which relates to policies that would underlie a 6-year investment in our crumbling infrastructure. That is the good news. It was ultimately a bipartisan effort in the tradition of the committee. There is not too much to make partisan about moving goods and people from here to there efficiently except for those who are opposed to the Federal Government being involved and, who, luckily, don't represent a majority on our committee. So that is the good news. The bad news is we still do not have the funding mechanism before us, so we have to do another short-term extension. Also, the currently stated objective for funding is totally inadequate. I mean, America is falling apart. It is embarrassing, actually. These States, including many all-red Republican States--14 States-- have voted to raise gas taxes since 2013 to invest in maintaining or in rebuilding their infrastructure or in building out new transportation options to get their citizens and goods out of congestion--14 States. Since 2008, nearly half of the States have taken action to raise more funds. The Federal Government last raised the gas tax in 1993, and we are told any increase in user fees--gas tax, barrel tax, indexation of the gas tax, vehicle miles traveled--is all off the table. We cannot ask those who use the system to pay user fees to improve the system that they use on a daily basis. I think the American people are more realistic than that. Luckily, this bill contains a provision that, should this Congress or a future, more enlightened Congress decide to allocate additional funds, those funds will flow through under the policies set out in this bill and the formulas set out in this bill without any further action by Congress, as it is really a good idea to avoid coming to Congress for anything whenever you can. So that is, I think, a very important provision of the bill. There is an AP story today that kind of goes to the heart of this, and it talks about the fact that, in many States, they are abandoning roads and bridges. We are not just talking about the rural heartland anymore. This has been somewhat commonplace in the rural heartland, where they have been saying, ``We can't afford to pave these roads anymore. We are going back to gravel.'' We are talking about King County in Washington State. We are talking about the counties and State areas surrounding Des Moines, Iowa. We are talking about major urban areas and the fact that, since the Federal Government has failed to invest and to live up to its partnership for major, critical urban area projects or major projects for our ports or other choke points on the system, States have had to concentrate resources there. They have tried to raise more money, again, with no help from the Federal Government. Now they are having to abandon the 20th-century transportation system. I mean, that is pretty darned pathetic, that we are not holding up our end of that bargain and making any effort to do that. So that is the bad news part. As the chairman mentioned, this bill also includes critical provisions to extend positive train control deadlines. With the exception of some portion of Amtrak, nobody will be able to meet the deadline of January 1, which does mean an extraordinary disruption of the movement of freight and commuter and passenger rail across the United States. We have worked very hard with the Senate in negotiations, and we have a bicameral agreement on the extension. It is tough. It says we are not going to get to this point again. It is not going to be kick the can, kick the can, kick the can. It says that all of the entities that are required to put in place positive train control will put forward a plan for approval with measurable benchmarks over this 3-year period, and they will be tracked as to meeting those benchmarks during that 3-year period. So it won't be that, suddenly, we get to the end of 3 years and we hear from a majority of freight and/or passenger-commuter railroads, saying, ``Gee, we just can't make it.'' We will know where we are headed and will be able to target our efforts on those who are lagging behind. At the end of that, yes, it will be possible to get another extension, but they all will have had to have installed the equipment. The reality is that this is an expensive and complicated process, and putting in the equipment is, obviously, the first critical part and turning it on, but then it can take up to 2 years to get it certified as operational. So we are acceding to that reality in this legislation by saying: 3 years and measurable goals to get to the 3 years. Everybody is up with installation, and, hopefully, most will be operational at that point. Some may not be due to circumstances beyond their control, even though they have made the necessary investments, and under negotiations with the Secretary of Transportation, they could get further extensions. So that is a very time-sensitive portion of this bill. I have had many colleagues on my side saying, ``I am really tired of these short-term extensions. I really don't want to vote for another one.'' I have said that this is different. We have the policy in place--we don't have the funding yet--and we have got this very critical element of positive train control. I am urging Members on my side of the aisle to support this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the ranking Democrat.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 2015, I returned to Oregon to attend to various matters in my District. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: On agreeing to the Amash amendment to H.R. 702, I would have voted ``no.'' On agreeing to the Messer/Lowenthal amendment to H.R. 702, I would have voted ``aye.'' On agreeing to the Messer amendment Number 2 to H.R. 702, I would have voted ``aye.'' On passage of the Democratic Motion to Recommit to H.R. 702, I would have voted ``aye.'' On final passage of H.R. 702, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, today I will vote against H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act. The bill makes needed changes to allow tribes to fully manage their lands which I strongly support. Unfortunately, it goes too far by weakening bedrock environmental protections, and makes it difficult for those with legitimate legal grievances to seek justice. Technically the 2005 Energy Act allows tribes to enter into energy development leases through what are called Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, which must be approved by Interior. I say technically because no tribe has ever been successful in doing so. Tribes have submitted proposals that have sat with Interior for as long as eight years and then were never approved. Interior has never clarified what requirements are needed to gain approval. Potential business partners cannot and will not sit wait to see if the federal government will do its job. They will find partners that are able to move forward. One of most laudable parts of the bill is the creation of biomass demonstration projects. Our forests are overgrown and are infected with insects and disease. Fuel reduction is vital to forest health and reducing the severity of fires. Often overgrowth is not suitable for timber production, but can be suitable for energy production. Many tribes are ready to take advantage of these resources; they have their own processing facilities, trained work force and infrastructure in place to discover benefits to improve forest health, maintain fish and wildlife habitat, and create renewable energy. Tribes, lest we forget, are sovereign nations. Yet they regularly encounter obstacles not experienced by private landowners. The federal government already has the tools to solve this inequity, but refuses to do so. The lack of urgency to correct what amounts to bureaucratic indifference is not acceptable. America's first stewards of the land have the right to manage and develop their lands, and the federal government's inaction to ensure their rights is deplorable. Because the bill goes beyond necessary reforms by curtailing environmental and judicial review, the president has issued a veto threat. I look forward to the Senate removing those provisions which unnecessarily hinder what could be a good bill and sending it back to the House.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize University of Oregon Professor GZ (Charlie) Brown, Philip H. Knight Professor of Architecture. For 38 years, Professor Brown has taught and inspired generations of University of Oregon students and practitioners. Prof. Brown is a leader in sustainable design and founded the UO Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory, (ESBL) located in Portland and Eugene. As director of the ESBL, he developed and oversaw research projects focused on understanding how building and transportation design determines energy consumption. The lab collaborates with designers, builders, developers, and governmental agencies to develop strategies and design tools that maximize energy efficiency in new materials, components, assemblies, buildings, and communities. The ESBL has acted as a design consultant on more than 100 projects. Prof. Brown is a pioneer. In 1988, he collaborated on a study investigating the impacts of climate change on the energy performance of buildings. In 1991, he served as an advisor on the Global Warming project for the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress. He is the author of a pioneering book on the practice of sustainable design, Sun, Wind and Light: Architectural Design Strategies, and co-author of Natural Ventilation in Northwest Buildings and Inside Out: Design Procedures for Passive Environmental Technologies. His list of publications includes more than 100 papers and reports on computing, energy, climate, and housing. He has also co-authored software programs to facilitate design, including Energy Scheming, SIP Scheming, Energy Module, and Auto Architect. Prof. Brown's research topics include visualization of building information, manually activated pneumatic shade controls, natural ventilation, daylighting (including the impact of structural design), heat exchangers, modular construction (with a focus on structural insulated panels), classroom design, building massing, passive design, insulation, energy auditing, and straw bale construction. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and the American Solar Energy Society, and has received awards for leadership in research from the U.S. Green Building Council and the Architectural Research Centers Consortium. In 1984, Prof. Brown received the National Award for Energy Innovation from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Governor's Award for Energy Innovation from the State of Oregon. Prof. Brown will be honored this month by the University of Oregon for his contributions, and it is my honor to recognize and congratulate him for his years of exemplary service.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article from Roseburg, Oregon's News-Review to honor and remember the lives of those who were taken too soon at Umpqua Community College on Thursday, October 1, 2015. I ask that all Americans pray for the friends and families of these nine victims as they grieve and rebuild from this tragedy. We must also keep in our thoughts and prayers those who were injured physically and emotionally by this event. It will take time and our support and patience as they grieve and recover. Roseburg is a strong and tight-knit community. I am heartened, and not surprised, by the acts of kindness and generosity in response to an unthinkable act. We call that ``UCC Strong,'' ``Roseburg Strong.'' It is this strong spirit that will carry everyone through this difficult time. [From the News-Review, Roseburg, Oregon, Oct. 2, 2015] Victims' Families: `Our Lives Have Been Shattered Beyond Repair' The victims who died in Thursday's Umpqua Community College shooting were far more than a list of names. Five of the nine people who died were under 21 years old. They were youth with bright futures, a teacher who loved the river, older students getting a fresh start. Their families, friends and community are devastated by their loss. treven anspach Treven Anspach's close friend Danny Gil said Anspach loved playing soccer and basketball, and he was good at it because he was taller than everybody else. He also liked just hanging out with friends. ``He always had a smile on his face, I don't know. He was just like the type of guy that was always cheerful to be around,'' Gil said. Gil was devastated when he heard from his roommate that a mutual friend had seen Anspach get shot. He believes Anspach was the victim who was brought to Mercy Medical Center and died there. ``I wasn't ready to let him go. I just wasn't ready for it. I just cry about it and talk to my friends about it and my family,'' Gil said. Gil said Anspach had his whole life ahead of him. ``He was doing good in college. He had a girlfriend. He was engaged, and he was ready for life to just begin,'' he said. In a statement, Anspach's family described him as ``one of the most positive young men, always looking for the best in life. Treven was larger than life and brought out the best in those around him.'' According to his parents, Anspach was ``a perfect son.'' Anspach played basketball for the Sutherlin Bulldogs and at

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and remember the lives of those who were taken too soon at Umpqua Community College on Thursday, October 1, 2015. I ask that all Americans pray for the friends and families of these nine victims as they grieve and rebuild from this tragedy. We must also keep in our thoughts and prayers those who were injured physically and emotionally by this event. It will take time, our support, and patience as they grieve and recover. Mr. Speaker, Roseburg is a small, strong, and tight-knit community. I am heartened, and not surprised, by the acts of kindness and generosity in response to this unthinkable act. We call that ``UCC Strong,'' ``Roseburg Strong.'' It is this strong spirit that will carry everyone through this difficult time. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House pause for a moment of silence in honor of those impacted by the tragic events at Umpqua Community College last week.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have requests to speak from Members who aren't here. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, that it is essential that we pass H.R. 3614--the Senate passed it expeditiously--and it be signed by the President. We cannot afford even, you know, the thought of a shutdown of the FAA. We have actually gone down that road in the past. Chairman Mica, in July of 2011, put some provisions into an FAA reauthorization that were objectionable to two very powerful Senators, and we actually went through a shutdown. What we lost was $400 million of revenue because the excise tax expired. Now, one airline, to give them credit, did pass the savings through, the excise tax, Alaska Airlines. All the other airlines kept the money, and we lost $400 million from the trust fund. Capital programs ground to a halt. Airport construction ground to a halt, threatening tens of thousands of jobs. Airport inspectors had to work. They were essential employees. They weren't paid, and they couldn't get government vouchers, so they had to use their personal credit cards to purchase tickets to go to work to do their job, which they weren't being paid for. I mean, this was the ultimate of absurdity. I only go into some detail on that because that is relevant to this extension. This is a 6-month extension. That should give us more than ample time to agree upon a long-term FAA authorization. Much work has already been done on major portions of the bill, but some disagreements remain over the future of the air traffic organization. My preference would be to insulate the entire FAA from future vicissitudes of Congress going off the rails with a shutdown and furloughs and provisions that are unacceptable to the Senate that cause a temporary lapse in authorization. You know, we can get there. We are very close now. This year, all but 7 percent of the FAA's budget will be paid for by user fees, excise taxes, and others, so we are quite close. We would like to reform procurement, to streamline it and make it work better at the FAA. When I was a very young Member of Congress, I got to witness the airport air traffic controller's workstation of the future. That was 1987. Well, it is 2015, and they don't have them yet. The FAA is the only agency of government worse at procurement than the Pentagon. Congress has tried to reform it; it didn't stick. We have got to try something different to get it to be more agile to give us the 21st century equipment and software that we need. Then there are issues of the actual sort of shape of the FAA bureaucracy, a little bit like that in the middle. Congress, also back in 1986, gave the FAA license to reform personnel practices to deal with some of that midlevel management bulge and streamline the agency and decisionmaking process, but that didn't take either. So the three problems are the predictability of funding and the agency being able to look into the future without having to worry about shutdowns, furloughs--I don't know how much time they spent over the last couple of weeks getting ready for this shutdown that everyone thought would come this week before Speaker Boehner announced his retirement; that has got to be dealt with--and then also the procurement reform and the personnel. The chairman's solution is to separate only the air traffic organization from the FAA and insulate that from Congress and those sorts of problems and make it, you know, free of the procurement rules and a lot of the personnel rules. I would prefer to do that with the entire agency, because there are functions--we do have the best air traffic control system in the world. We are busier in the U.S. with more planes under instrument flight rules on a daily basis, about 20 percent more on an IFR average, than Canada, U.K., France, and Germany combined. So we know we have a safe system. We move massive amounts of air traffic. We don't want to mess that up. And I understand, but I also don't think we can isolate it from other decisionmakers in the agency and leave them subject to the vicissitudes of Congress. The people who do the certifications, who do the inspections, who do the safety, it seems to me it should all be moved; and I propose a 21st century constitutionally chartered corporation in order to accomplish those goals and make it self-funding, self-sufficient, and not subject to appropriations or shutdowns or anything else that a future Congress might imagine. So that is the hangup. We haven't agreed on that part yet, but I think we can. We share common objectives, and 6 months should be more than ample time. I am hopeful that early this fall the chairman and I can resolve those issues with other members of the committee, and then we can go forward with our colleagues in the Senate and hopefully have, you know, a bill on the President's desk early, early next year, if not by the end of this year, although December promises to be perhaps a bit chaotic around here. In any case, 6 months should be ample time. I do not anticipate multiple short-term extensions. I don't want them, nor does the chairman, nor do, I believe, any other thoughtful members of the committee. I see the gentleman from New Jersey shaking his head. We couldn't agree more. We have been down that road before, down that runway before. We don't want to go down that runway again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this week, September 13-19, is designated National Truck Driver Appreciation Week and is set aside to honor the 3.4 million professional truck drivers in the United States. Trucking employs more than 7 million people, making it not just essential to our economy, but one of our country's largest sources of employment as well. Citizens in every community around the nation rely on trucks--for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the products we use. As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I know first-hand how important truckers are to the strength and well- being of our great nation. But trucks don't move without highly skilled drivers. I have long fought to ensure the safety of American roads and to preserve American trucking jobs. I have also advanced measures to ensure that all truck drivers have the opportunity make a decent living. In order for our truckers to do their jobs, they need Congress to do its job and pass a long-overdue, robust highways reauthorization. Truck drivers are on the front lines and face the effects of Congressional inaction every day. More than 147,000 bridges in the United States are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (one of every four bridges). Nearly two thirds of the nation's roads are in less than ``good'' condition. Congestion is a ballooning problem, affecting 42 percent of America's major roads and costing the economy $121 billion a year. While our infrastructure has deteriorated, Congress has been asleep at the wheel, passing short-term patches that prolong uncertainty and force states to delay critical projects to fix decrepit, weight- restricted bridges that can't handle freight trucks or pockmarked highways that blow out tires. As our needs have increased, surface transportation programs have been limping along with flat funding since 2009. The federal gas tax pays for highways and public transit, but it has not been raised in 22 years, and its purchasing power has fallen 40 percent. We need to do more than the status quo. This must change. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is currently working on a bill to improve the conditions of our nation's roads, bridges, and intermodal facilities by reauthorizing surface transportation programs. A long-term bill is the only responsible action for Congress to take. Robust levels of Federal investment make a truck driver's workplace-- our highways--safer and more efficient. The Federal government needs to continue its leading role in promoting an interconnected interstate system vital to the timely movement of goods and people. This system must be paid for with guaranteed, sustainable funding that will bring our economy into the 21st Century--and not myopic solutions to replace a strong Federal role, such as tolling or privatization. National Truck Driver Appreciation Week is an opportunity to reflect on the vital role that truck drivers play in supporting and sustaining our economy and our society. The best way Congress can honor truck drivers is to pass a fully funded, long-term authorization bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for both the kind words and for yielding the time here on the floor. I particularly want to thank the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee and his words of support, also, and I thank the committee for sending this bill to the floor. The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act is a bipartisan, no-cost, commonsense bill that will go a long way toward helping resolve some of the problems Federal Government and its haphazard policy shifts have created for three western Oregon tribes. The bill provides fairness for three tribes: the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; the Cow Creek; and the Coquille. The bill contains the text of provisions within H.R. 5701, which passed unanimously last December, but was not enacted into law. For too long, Federal policies have unfairly disadvantaged Indian tribes in western Oregon. After signing many treaties with the tribes, the United States removed them from their original homelands and put them on only two reservations, established to house potentially more than 60 tribal governments. In 1954, Congress made things worse. All tribes west of the Cascades lost Federal recognition when the Western Oregon Termination Act became law. Scholars called it the ``termination era.'' It was terrible Federal Indian policy. It was so bad that it was formally rebuked by Congress less than 30 years later. In the 1970s, Congress began the process of restoring the western Oregon tribes to Federal recognition, cleaning up the mess and injustice the United States had made. In fact, I began my congressional career as an original sponsor of the Coquille Restoration Act, legislation to restore one of Oregon's terminated tribes; yet, even today, it remains difficult for these tribes to function as the sovereign nations they are and to govern themselves effectively. Unlike many tribes, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, as well as the Cow Creek, are deprived of any land held in trust. Unlike any other tribe in the United States, the Coquille Indian Tribe must function under a legal anomaly with regard to its own forest. The Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act makes good on a decades-old promise to restore land bases for the Coos and Cow Creek tribes, and it puts the Coquille Indian Tribe's forest on an equal footing with those of other Indian tribes nationwide. H.R. 2791 deals only with Oregon issues, Oregon tribes, and Oregon constituents. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I stand in proud support of the international agreement reached by the P5+1 nations (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and the United States) that is aimed at preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is essential to the security of the U.S., Israel, and the larger international community. It is why the U.S. led negotiations on this agreement and why this agreement has the unanimous support of the U.N. Security Council, over 90 nations, our Gulf state allies, and the world's largest powers. Under this agreement, Iran has committed to obligations that go far beyond the requirements of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The agreement will block every pathway to a bomb for at least 15 years. It will require Iran to eliminate 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges that enrich uranium as well as remove all the pipework and infrastructure that connects the centrifuges, and terminate the use of its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. Iran will be required to fill the core of the heavy water Arak reactor with concrete and repurpose it for peaceful purposes. Additionally the deal directs Iran to ship all spent fuel from the reactor out of the country, and prohibits Iran from building any new heavy water reactors. Experts say that these steps are not easily reversible and it would take Iran anywhere from 2 to 5 years to rebuild that infrastructure. Efforts to rebuild it would be detected within a few days. Under the agreement, Iran's uranium and plutonium manufacturing capabilities will be both severely limited and strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA will be granted around-the-clock access to Iran's uranium mills, mines, conversion facilities, centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities, making it nearly impossible for the Iranian government to violate their manufacturing restrictions. The IAEA will also have access to sites of concern where they believe unauthorized production to be taking place. If Iran fully complies with this agreement it will be an historic moment not only for the U.S. but for the rest of the world. If Iran violates the agreement, U.S., U.N., and E.U. sanctions will be snapped back into place. Further, all U.S. sanctions on Iran related to their involvement in terrorism and human rights abuses remain in place. All of the P5+1 partners understand that the U.S. will continue to strongly enforce these sanctions, including sanctions that impact non-U.S. entities. While I will not question the intentions of my colleagues, since we all have the same goal which is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, some of the rhetoric in opposition to this agreement has been damaging, unhelpful, and at times absurd. Opponents of the agreement have called into question the integrity of the IAEA and their ability as the world's foremost independent organization on nuclear non-proliferation to do their work--for example, by claiming that the confidential nuclear safeguards agreement between the IAEA and Iran is a ``side deal'' and must be made available to the U.S. government. There is too much at stake and this debate merits a serious conversation based on facts. We need to move beyond the irresponsible, heated rhetoric and do what's necessary to assure that this agreement is successful, will not be violated by Iran, and ensuring that if violations occur there will be serious consequences. When this agreement is implemented Iran will be further away from the bomb than they are today. It will result in prolonging their timeline for creating a nuclear bomb from a matter of months to at least one year. Without the agreement, Iran would be able to continue their nuclear program unrestrained. If the U.S. walked away from the agreement, Iran would most likely ramp up their centrifuge production-- as they did after the U.S. imposed sanctions--which would surely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Congress should play a supportive role in ensuring that the president can implement this agreement and provide oversight of Iran's compliance. Instead, my Republican colleagues are attempting to scuttle and undermine it, damaging U.S. credibility in the international community and creating a potentially dangerous security position for our nation. While I have not always agreed with President Obama's foreign policy choices I have fully supported his efforts to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy. The conclusion of this agreement demonstrates just how far the U.S. has come in repairing the damage wrought during the Bush administration. It proves that once again the U.S. can be trusted in working with both our allies and adversaries in navigating some of the world's most challenging security issues. The U.S. has nothing to lose by implementing this agreement--all options remain on the table, but we have a lot to lose if we walk away. Rejecting this agreement like some of my colleagues are advocating would take us back to some of the darkest years in U.S. history. Opponents of this agreement are using arguments put forth by Dick Cheney and Benjamin Netanyahu, two leading cheerleaders of the Iraq war--the worst U.S. foreign policy mistake in the history of our nation. Nobody wants to become further entangled in an endless war in the Middle East. The U.S. wasted more than $4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and spent more money rebuilding Afghanistan than we did on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. What have the results been? Afghanistan is still a mess and Iraq is rife with religious and ethnic strife and partially overrun by ISIS. Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon would be a huge step forward in the most unstable and dangerous region of the world. Implementing this agreement is the only option and the best alternative available to taking military action. Lastly, I'm hopeful that the successful implementation of this agreement will lead to a permanent peaceful resolution to this matter and open up a new chapter in Iranian-U.S. relations. Iran's future is also at stake and there is a young Iranian population that would like to see better relations with the U.S. and a more open Iran. This agreement should not be viewed as an irreversible capitulation to Iran. It is the first step in what will be a very long and arduous road to resolving critical issues with Iran and ensuring a safer Middle East.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, I will look the camera in the eye and say why I am supporting this agreement. I think there is only one common thing that is agreed upon here in the House and in the Senate: that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. If the U.S. were to walk away from this deal and say we want to go back to the table, they will be sitting in an empty room, and the only people at the table will be U.S. representatives. There will not be any other nations from Europe, Russia, or China; and Iran won't be at the table either. This is a deal that is not perfect. Sure, it is far from perfect. They say: Well, Iran could become a nuclear threshold state again in 10 or 12 years because of the way this agreement is written. If we walk away today, they are a nuclear threshold state; and they will build a bomb, and they will have it within 3 or 4 months. Then what? Well, we do have options, of course. They are being recommended by Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Benjamin Netanyahu, all who were cheerleaders for the Iraq war and who were oh so wrong about the greatest foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States of America. But they learned nothing from that, and they think yet another war in the Mideast is a better solution than this. Now what does Iran give up? Two-thirds of its centrifuges. They are allowed to keep the oldest, most primitive centrifuges. Ninety-seven percent of its enriched uranium stockpile will be gone. Their mine sites will be monitored 24/7. Their mill sites for uranium will be monitored 24/7. There will be an intrusive inspection regime. They have to fill in the core of the nearly finished Iraq reactor--which can take them on the plutonium path to a bomb--with concrete and convert that to peaceful use. Natanz, underneath the mountain that some would have us bomb-- unfortunately, it is underneath the mountain--that will become a medical facility monitored 24/7. No. That is Fordow, excuse me, not Natanz. Yet we hear the drumbeat for war over here. They don't want to say they want to have a war, but that is the ultimate conclusion. If you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, this is the best deal we can get, and we amazingly got this deal with the support of Russia, China, and four nations in Europe. Now, they are already flooding into Iran in anticipation of this deal going forward. They have no intention of going back to the table. The Chinese want the oil. Russians want to sell them weapons. The planes have been totally full coming out of Europe with high-level corporate executives wanting to go into Iran and do business. No. This is the only alternative before the United States Congress and the only one that can prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon in the short term. Yes, 12, 15 years down the road, we may have to deal with this again. Yet again, 12 or 15 years from now, under this regime, perhaps Iran will have changed. We will see. So I am proud of this vote, and I think it is the best path. I am also incredibly proud of my vote against popular opinion and such sagacious people as Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Benjamin Netanyahu about invading Iraq, which has turned the Middle East into an unbelievable mess that will not be undone in my lifetime. ISIS is basically a product of the Iraq war, an invasion by the U.S. So let's not create even worse problems. Let's take this imperfect agreement, but let's take it because it prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon and having a weapons race in this incredibly unstable part of the world.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, I was not present due to a medical procedure and missed the following vote: Roll Call Vote 490, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3154--S. 1359, The E-Warranty Act of 2015. I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would direct anyone interested in this legislation to my remarks on the 5-month bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fund the purchase, installation, and activation of an early warning system on the Cascadia subduction zone off the Pacific Northwest. The Cascadia fault has the prospect of unleashing a quake at any point that actually could exceed that off of Japan. As we know, in Japan, 15,000 people died, $300 billion in damages. In Oregon, our State expects thousands of deaths, $32 billion in infrastructure. If the United States of America would deploy, like Japan and other countries are doing, an early warning system, thousands of lives could be saved. Inland we could evacuate schools that are going to collapse. Up in Portland they could suspend the MAX service and get people off the bridges that are going to collapse. Manufacturing operations that are critical could be suspended. We have the potential to save thousands of lives, tens of millions, billions, of dollars in excess damages, and it would just require the United States of America to do what other countries are doing: deploy an early warning system off the Pacific coast. The technology is known. We just lack the will to fund it. So I am directing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to deploy such a system in the near future.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, 64 countries require labeling, including the European Union. This would give companies an opportunity to have a consistent label across the United States and into the European Union. Consumers want this. The polls are consistently 88 percent. Monsanto spends $20 million, $30 million like they did in Oregon convincing people it would drive up food costs; and then they won by one one- hundredths of 1 percent in that election, after spending a record amount of money. Americans want to know what is in their food; don't put them in the dark. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are three preemption sections in this bill: one prohibits States from labeling GMOs; another establishes something for a label called ``natural,'' which will contain GMOs and can contain GMOs and still be labeled ``natural''; and then finally, a very poorly written big section that seems to preempt all State regulations and tribal regulations. The Navajo Nation has a ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops. They are trying to preserve their indigenous crops. States have provided for buffer zones in 30 States. This bill, I believe, will preempt those 30 States from establishing buffer zones to protect conventional crops. We had conventional wheat in Oregon that was banned from export because of GMO pollution--conventional wheat, let alone organic wheat, which would be worthless if it had GMO pollution. So in this bill I had an amendment to clarify this section and say, no, no, no, not preempting State Departments of Agriculture establishing reasonable rules to protect conventional and organic farmers from preemption. They say they fixed it. I don't believe they have. That part of the bill is very vague. This, I believe, could both preempt tribal sovereign entity, State sovereign entity, and reasonable regulations to protect other farmers.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this bill would deceive consumers. It would say that there will now be an FDA definition of ``natural.'' The FDA has never, ever wanted to try and define ``natural'' and that it would include GMOs. Something labeled as ``natural''--Cheerios, naturally flavored--if it contained GMOs, they wouldn't have to say that. So consumers often, in fact, confuse the ``organic'' and the ``natural'' label. In fact, some polls show that consumers more often think ``natural'' is natural and they are not quite sure what ``organic'' is. This bill is going to muddy those waters further, deceive consumers, and have them buy things labeled ``natural'' that contain genetically modified organisms. Why is that in this bill? We can fight over the labeling standards for disclosure. Why are you going to muddy the waters and confuse things and create a new mandatory Federal definition and label for ``natural'' that contains GMOs? Again, here we have all natural vodka creamy marinara. Wow, that is something. And again, this has a number of things in it that very likely contain GMOs that wouldn't be disclosed. But they do have to disclose, and she does, cellulose, sorbic acid, whey, xanthan gum, vodka--of course, it is vodka sauce. But in the future, natural, contains GMOs, no disclosure. This is really, really I think probably the most egregious part of a very egregious bill--preempting states' rights. Remember, this is the party of states' rights. Until a State does something they don't like, then we have got to preempt it. Then they say, well, we can't have proliferation of labels. Well, there is a very simple solution, my bill, one mandatory standard Federal label that would say, ``contains GMOs.'' Then that label could be sold into the European Union. You would be able to sell to about half of the world's economy with one label; whereas, today, you have got to have one label for the EU, one label for the U.S., and then a multiple of other countries where 50 major corporations sell their products. This is so disingenuous. It is very discouraging.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, there was a time when Monsanto supported labeling. Of course, 64 countries have adopted labeling, including the United Kingdom. Here is what Monsanto said back then: Monsanto fully supports U.K. food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction to these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase. We encourage you to look out for these labels. That was then; this is now. Now, Monsanto and Monsanto's allies say such labeling is impossible, impractical, and unnecessary. There was a time when Monsanto was proud of their genetically modified organisms. Why not now? We have heard all of these arguments, some of which aren't exactly accurate, about the great benefits of GMOs. Why not put on there, ``GMOs solve global warming.'' Put it right there on the label. For all the people who are concerned about climate change, that would be something. Now, 64 countries around the world require labeling; and many, many large U.S. firms actually do label in those countries. The countries are all the European Union--that is a pretty big slice of the world economy--China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, India, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia. Now, all of those countries require it; U.S. manufacturers ship products to those countries, and they put it on the label. Now, Hershey's is not the only company that does this. This is a Hershey's label, and it is ``made in the USA.'' We like that. We like exporting things around the world, so we are very proud of the exports of Hershey's and other food manufacturers, but because of laws in Sweden, they have to say ``contains genetically modified organisms.'' Now, somehow, they can do that there. I mean, the EU has consistent rules, and my bill would have rules consistent with the EU. They could make one label, which would go to about half the world's economy. If it really costs money to print different labels, that would actually save them money, and it would do away with this argument about a proliferation of various different labels across the U.S. There are some other countries that have different requirements, and they do still export to those countries, too. They can't have a uniform overseas label, but they could get darn close with all of the European Union, United States; and New Zealand and Australia are virtually identical. Now, it isn't just Hershey's. These large companies go into--at least--50 of the 64 countries that require labeling: Pepsi, Tyson, Nestle, Coke, Mars, Hershey, Kellogg, and Heinz. Now, I was contacted by Hershey, and they said: We can't deal with the proliferation in the States. Then they should support my bill. Get a uniform national label. Let consumers know it contains GMOs. Monsanto can go out and tout the benefits or others can tout the benefits of GMOs, and then they could have one label for the EU and the United States. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.