Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the leadership and insight from my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina. Your efforts have helped keep this country safe in the midst of ongoing threats both known and unpredictable. An essential component of these efforts is the UASI grant program, which provides financial assistance to address the unique planning, operations, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas. As you know so well, the AUSI program is critical to helping our cities build and sustain capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism. In my district, the Portland Urban Area has been a recipient of UASI grant funds since FY 2003. This critical funding has enhanced regional collaboration and coordination within and between responder disciplines and across jurisdictions. The Portland Urban Area is more secure as a result, but most certainly has further to go, and must continue its partnership with the UASI program. Problematically, Portland is no longer a recipient of UASI funding, with little notice that would have allowed proper planning for alternative methods to meet their security needs, and with little transparency as to why this is the case. The FY 2012 program funded the top 31 highest risk urban areas in the country. And while the FY 2013 appropriations bill funds the program at a nearly equal level than the year before, unfortunately it also contains language that limits use of the UASI funds to no more than the top 25 highest risk urban areas, a cap which seems arbitrary and not based in risk or threat data. This cap is having a significant impact. Important regional areas like Portland, Orlando, Las Vegas and New Orleans have been eliminated from FY13 funding despite being national centers of tourism and commerce. Under no circumstances are Portland and the other affected cities any less vulnerable to terrorism than they were 12 months ago. And in the last 12 months, the Portland Urban Area has gone from a ranking of 23 11 months ago, 29 one month ago, and 27 weeks ago. How can a city plan with such drastic changes in ranking, with little notice? Clearly the metrics used by DHS are flawed, or at the very least, are not adapted to operate within a 25-city cap. The federal government has a responsibility to be a partner with our local communities, protecting our citizens from terrorist threats, and moderating potential impacts from natural disasters. While diminished resources are a factor for all levels of government, there should be some certainty for our communities that the federal government will be a continuing partner and when. In the long term, I would deeply appreciate an opportunity to engage with this Committee, my Senate colleagues, and all local cities impacted, to better understand this issue, and the future of the UASI program. And in the short term, the FY 2013 appropriations for DHS included $188 million in discretionary homeland security grant funds. The Secretary has latitude to apply these funds to previously eliminated grant programs including the UASI program. I would urge the Secretary to use some of this funding to the jurisdictions on that have fallen below the FY13 cap. This bridge funding would greatly assist these communities to continue their anti- terrorism coordination at some level while working to achieve sustainable funding in the years to come. There are also common-sense reforms that can strengthen the federal- local partnership for the UASI program by, for example, extending the timeline for cities to use these grant dollars. The shifting timeline from 4, to 3, and now 2 years adds another layer of difficulty to planning and utilizing these dollars as effectively and comprehensively as possible. I sincerely appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues for taking my concerns into consideration and I look forward to addressing this issue with you in a comprehensive and thoughtful way, something you both know how to do so very well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have a major piece of legislation again being considered by this Congress, the farm bill. It expired in the last Congress; and, due to significant political machinations and controversies, we couldn't get it across the finish line because it was too expensive, didn't have enough reform, shortchanged nutrition and, frankly, didn't deal with the conservation elements that Americans care about. Well, we're at it again, and the big, contentious issues remain. The direct payments appear to be gone, subsidies that go to farmers regardless of whether or not they even farm the land; but the big, contentious issues remain. The issues of subsidization have simply migrated. There's an effort to have a shallow-loss provision or additional crop insurance subsidies that may actually end up being far more expensive than the direct payments they're supposed to be replacing. There is an ongoing controversy regarding nutrition. The Senate bill cuts $4 billion at a time when too many Americans are, in fact, food insecure; and food stamps, the SNAP program, plays a vital interest in communities around the country. The House bill is even worse: $16 billion in additional cuts that families rely upon and, frankly, that provide $1.70 of economic activity for each dollar that is given to beneficiaries. Well, there is one area that shouldn't be unduly controversial: the conservation title of the farm bill. The farm bill is the most important piece of environmental legislation that will be considered by this Congress. The question is whether it will be a good environmental bill or a poor one. The conservation title deals with programs that are very, very important but that the private market doesn't provide, a market-based incentive for people to invest in. I'm talking about things that, if you asked the public generally, of course they are concerned about clean air, clean water, soil protection, wetland and grassland preservation. But these are things that we've seen for the last 60 years. Unless the Federal Government steps in with either subsidy or regulation, we pay a terrible price, dating back to the monstrous soil erosion that was part of the Dust Bowl tragedy. Here, again, we're in a situation where the conservation title is in the crosshairs. It's the conservation programs that too often have been cut when we are in need of money. They are touted when people are encouraged to vote for the bill, and then those resources dissipate. Funding is diverted to large projects. Large, confined animal feedlot operations take huge amounts of this money to deal with something that should be part of their cost of doing business and large operations that could fund it themselves. It takes away resources from small and medium-size farmers, or drains valuable wetlands. There's a reason why only one in four of the applications for conservation programs are approved. Because there isn't enough money and too much is diverted. I've introduced H.R. 1890, the Balancing Food, Farms, and Environment Act, which seeks to change those priorities to be able to have more money available, targeted toward small and medium-size farmers and ranchers, and be able to put a premium on longer-term conservation. We have a bizarre situation now where, because of the amazingly bloated and inefficient farm crop insurance program, people are plowing up land that previously had been in conservation, land that's going to be eroded and that's probably going to fail because it's marginal cropland but they don't care because the Federal Government is going to pay them anyway. And the taxpayer loses twice. They pay through unnecessary crop insurance subsidies and they pay because they lose the water quality, the water quantity, the protection of wildlife habitat-- and soil erosion. By all means, let's have the political tug-of-war over unnecessary subsidization in terms of fighting nutrition, but let's come together on the conservation items, which really ought to be nonpartisan, focused, and economically productive.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, we are debating legislation that is critical to the safety of all Americans. One threat that often gets underplayed but which has been catapulted into the news recently is natural disaster. Seventy-five percent of Americans live in areas that are at risk for some type of disaster--whether flood, fire, hurricane, tornado, landslide, or earthquake. In the past 2 years, the United States experienced 25 severe, extreme weather events that caused over 1,100 fatalities, $188 billion in damages--far more than all of the domestic acts of terror in the last decade. This legislation spends $6.2 billion on disaster relief, $5.6 billion of which is emergency spending not subject to discretionary caps. I strongly support the role of the Federal Government in disaster response, recovery, and prevention; but the costs of disaster relief are staggering, and they are growing--whether due to stronger and more frequent storms, climate change, increased development in harm's way, or an increase in disaster declarations. To put these costs into perspective, Congress started in 2013 by passing the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which generated $600 billion over 10 years in new revenue. Two weeks later, we passed the Superstorm Sandy supplemental, totaling $60 billion--in total, all of that first year's revenue under that proposal. In times of budget austerity, Congress should have a full understanding of how much money taxpayers are spending on disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation. Unfortunately, these expenditures are far from transparent. There are wildly varying estimates of what these costs may be. The OMB recently estimated that the Federal Government spent an average of $11.5 billion per year from 2001 to 2011, but it included only funding specifically related to the Stafford Act and excluded the highest and lowest spending years, including $37 billion for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Another analysis found we spent $136 billion from fiscal year 2011 to 2013 on disaster relief, about $45 billion a year and nearly $400 per household per year on average. A 2005 study referenced the cost of $1 billion per week from emergency response, public and private property damages, and business disruption. This calculation was made before Hurricane Katrina. An accurate and comprehensive accounting of Federal disaster spending, as well as an estimate of future needs, will enable this Congress and future Congresses to make better decisions about how much to budget for these events and how to prioritize scarce Federal dollars. Accurate information would also inform the ongoing conversation about ways to reduce this spending in the first place. Spending more money up front on mitigation and community resilience can reduce the need for disaster relief expenditures. The Multihazard Mitigation Council, in a congressionally mandated study, documented that $1 spent on mitigation saved society an average of $4 in avoided disaster costs. I appreciate language in this legislation requiring FEMA to submit an expenditure plan detailing the use of funds for disaster readiness and support. I think it's an important step forward. But, frankly, I think the reporting requirement may be too narrow. I would request that the chairman and ranking member would work with me as this legislation moves to conference to expand the scope of the reporting requirement. We need FEMA to look comprehensively at Federal spending on disaster recovery, preparedness, and, yes, possibly prevention, and look at spending on all Federal programs, agencies and departments responding to and preparing for storms, flooding, fires, earthquake, drought and other disasters. FEMA should examine the reasons behind the rising costs and provide recommendations that may mitigate them going forward. The inherent unpredictability of natural disasters makes exact congressional budgeting in this area very difficult, and my heart goes out to the committee and your staff. But it's clear disaster relief will continue to strain Federal budgets, particularly if the recent bout of extreme weather continues. The first step towards finding savings will be to have an accurate accounting of these expenditures. We should take that step now in this legislation, and I would look forward to working with the committee if you're so inclined. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since California first passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1996, 19 states and the District of Columbia have approved medical marijuana programs. In addition, voters in Washington and Colorado recently voted to allow the sale and use of recreational marijuana. Yet any business associated with these expanding industries faces a legal gray area between federal and state law. While states have expanded legal economic opportunities, federal drug, tax, and banking laws continue to limit these emerging small businesses. It's long been recognized that marijuana has therapeutic values. People use it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis and more and more of our veterans now use it to help with PTSD. At least one million people now receive legal medical marijuana treatment. What, however, remains illegal is for the thousands of legitimate businesses providing a legal product to treat their business expenses like every other business and deduct them from their operating income. Decades ago, a drug dealer claimed the cost of his yacht and weapons as legitimate business expenses. Congress responded by making expenses associated with a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance ineligible for deduction. This change has since ensnared the thousands of legitimate marijuana businesses operating in compliance with state law, who are now paying a federal income tax double or triple the effective tax rate of most businesses. These businesses cannot claim the work opportunity tax credit if they hire a veteran. They cannot depreciate their American-made irrigation equipment. The deductions that any other business could take for the construction or operating costs of their facilities are unavailable to them. This is why I am introducing the Small Business Tax Equity Act, bipartisan legislation to allow marijuana businesses operating in compliance with state law to deduct their legitimate expenses. It will only have effect in states which have legalized aspects of marijuana use. Legal businesses in America are taxed on their income, not on their gross revenues, except for the otherwise legal operation of marijuana businesses. Our failure to update federal tax law forces these businesses to discontinue an important service, or to drive it underground, which encourages evasion. This bill conforms federal tax law to state law and ensures the fair treatment of a legal industry.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Since 1996, when California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana, the movement has spread across America. Over the last 17 years, 19 States and the District of Columbia have been pioneering therapy involving the medical use of marijuana. It has long been recognized that marijuana had therapeutic values which were utilized with chemotherapy patients to mitigate or to stop the constant nausea. People have used it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain. There is now a wide range of therapeutic uses, from a system of multiple sclerosis to helping some of our veterans with PTSD. A million people seek treatment that is perfectly legal under their State laws. What is not legal is for these hundreds of legitimate businesses providing a product that is important to a million people to be able to treat their business expenses like every other business and be able to deduct them from their operating income for tax purposes. Decades ago, a drug dealer attempted to deduct the cost of his yacht and his weapons as a business expense. Congress, understandably, responded in 1982 by making expenses associated with dealing in a controlled substance ineligible for a deduction. That fixed the drug dealer, but it is has now ensnared hundreds of legitimate businesses operating under State law, by the way, laws usually approved by a vote of the people. As a result, they cannot now deduct entirely legitimate business operating expenses; they cannot claim the work opportunity tax credit if they hire a veteran; and they cannot depreciate their American-made irrigation equipment. The deduction for the construction or operating costs of a facility that they may want to revitalize is not allowed. As a result, these small businesses end up paying an effective tax rate that is double or triple the 15 percent to 30 percent that would normally be associated with the profits on most businesses. Their effective tax rates often are 60 percent to 75 percent. Washington and Colorado are about to begin operation of businesses for the recreational adult use of marijuana authorized by their voters last fall. The situation is thus to become more complex and a burden even greater for more emerging small businesses. We don't have to penalize hundreds of legitimate small businesses across the country to deal with a drug dealer. I'm introducing bipartisan legislation, the Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2013. Any business under this act that operates under State law would be able to deduct legitimate expenses for their business. We shouldn't impose punitive double, triple, or quadruple ordinary rates because Congress has not modernized either the Federal drug laws or the Tax Code. We should not force them to discontinue a vital service for a million Americans or drive it underground or, frankly, encourage evasion by punitive taxes that are unjustified or unnecessary. Let's bring this out of the shadows and encourage these small businesses to be treated fairly. It's entirely possible that we will end up actually collecting more revenue, fostering more respect for the law, and ensuring a vital supply of medical marijuana for more than a million people who depend upon it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Bishop for his courtesy. I also would really like to thank you, Chairman Culberson, for your excellent work on this bill. This is a massive undertaking. One aspect here that I want to focus on is the policies. The Pentagon has set its sight on good policies. Not only do our troops benefit, but so does the American public. Nothing demonstrates this more than the recent Defense Department's Unified Facilities Criteria, UFC 2-100-01. Behind this strange-sounding title is the Pentagon's installation master planning document for over 500 installations around the world, four times the amount of space of Walmarts. This document, updated for the very first time since 1986, has the potential to positively impact every military servicemember and their families by making our military bases more welcoming, more connected, and more livable. However, the UFC is only guidance for each branch of the military. In order for it to have a positive and transformative impact, we will need to see strong implementation guidance from each service branch. I believe this is a priority for the Department of Defense. Delay and deviation would only serve to harm or set back our military families who deserve nothing but the best. As such, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman and ranking member to include language urging the Department of Defense to provide an assessment of the progress and barriers to the implementation of UFC 2-100-01.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Terrific. Thank you very much. If I have time remaining, I was curious if the chairman of the subcommittee feels comfortable with working with us to make some progress on this implementation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this and look forward to making this progress for our military families. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair. As our veterans return home from Iraq and Afghanistan after 10 years of conflict, it's critical that they're able to get the care they need and deserve. Part of that care must be greater access to complementary and alternative medicine. Unfortunately, based on conversations I've had with veterans back in my district and with practitioners of alternative medicine, and letters I've received, it's too often difficult for the veterans to utilize complementary and alternative medicine through the VA system, even though research is showing that a holistic approach to treatment, including complementary and alternative medicine, can make a significant impact. A recent survey conducted by the Samueli Institute, which shared its findings at a Senate Veterans' Affairs hearing 2 weeks ago, demonstrated how the effectiveness of drugless self-care and integrative practices for treatment of these conditions had immediate and long-lasting impacts. Many VA practitioners have taken note and are doing their best to integrate these practices. Many veterans are seeking out these services. Both, sadly, are encountering institutional barriers and limited availability. Given the steadfast commitment of this committee to do all it can to increase the quality of care for our veterans, I would sincerely request the chairman and ranking member to address this issue as the bill proceeds through the process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the hard work of the committee and the willingness to work with us, to be able to make sure our veterans have access to these services, and look forward to working with you to make it happen. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do appreciate the courtesy that the chair and ranking member have evidenced. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas--we've worked not only on these issues, but he's played a critical role on another issue near and dear to my heart dealing with international water, and it's a pleasure to work again. Those efforts have saved countless lives abroad, and today, with this amendment, it's my hope that we can partner to improve and hopefully save lives right here at home. I helped organize, found and chair the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus. It's clear from our work that we find America standing on the precipice of discovery in neuroscience research that will lead to a higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans affected by neurological illnesses every year. Conditions in neuroscience have already dwarfed other areas of health care expenditures, and that's before the waves of baby boomers turning 65 at a rate of 10,000 per day for another 14 years are going to drive it even further. There are more people with brain disorders than all cancers and heart problems combined; and as society ages, this number will increase exponentially as will the cost to the health care system and the economy. But the importance of neuroscience isn't just about the numbers. It's about improving the quality of life for those affected by neurological trauma, and no one is more deserving of these breakthroughs than the returning servicemembers affected by traumatic brain injuries or posttraumatic stress disorder. As stated by General Peter Chiarelli, now the CEO of One Mind for Research and the 32nd chief of staff of the Army, TBI and PTSD have accounted for 36 percent of the disabling injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is convinced, as I think most of us in Congress are, that we must do all we can to help our veterans because these invisible wounds have devastating and long-lasting impacts. The amendment before the committee is identical to the one that I and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, who is my cochair of the Neuroscience Caucus, offered and had adopted in last year's MilCon-VA appropriations bill. The amendment aims to ensure that the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can truly be termed an ``epidemic.'' The amendment does not increase or decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires that no less than $35 million of the Medical and Prosthetic Research account goes towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury so that we can expedite the cure for Active Duty personnel and veterans suffering from the effects of brain and psychological trauma incurred during their service. The amendment, I hope, symbolizes a commitment from this Congress that, even in the midst of sequestration and tight budgets, we will not yield on this critical issue and area of funding. In meeting with neuroscientists, I am always amazed to hear how this one area of research often leads to positive, but unexpected, breakthroughs. For example, in researching depression, scientists found out that Prozac can help stroke victims recover motor skills more quickly. The account, the Military and Prosthetic Research, funds many critical areas of research with direct and indirect links to PTSD, and this complementary amendment ensures that these links are made and that research is shared to everyone's benefit. It's a commitment to using resources in a way that allows one scientific inquiry to seek out other areas of impact that will lead to breakthroughs in TBI and PTSD. These items demand our special attention because their effects can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly diagnosed. Early detection and prevention prevents chaos, hardship and, indeed, in some cases, a further loss of life. We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible as a missing limb, but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--a commitment from Congress to our servicemembers. We will continue to do all we can in developing new medicines and technology to improve the lives for those in need. I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee, and respectfully urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Farr, bringing this forward. I agree with what he said, except for one item. And that is that somehow medical marijuana is intensely controversial. What we're finding is that with the American public it's no longer really that controversial. As he said, 20 jurisdictions, 19 States and the District of Columbia, have approved medical marijuana to be available to their citizens. Over 1 million Americans are people who are legally entitled to have the qualities of medical marijuana. It has long been recognized that it has therapeutic values. They use it to deal with chronic paralyzing pain, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, symptoms of multiple sclerosis. There are many applications that are going to make a difference to our veterans dealing with traumatic brain injury or PTSD. Now, it is ironic that when we are trying to have a veterans health system that deals with the total patient--and the committee just supported an amendment that I had earlier to help give them alternative therapies--that we would prohibit a VA doctor from even discussing a therapy that is perfectly legal in 20 jurisdictions. What is the rationale here to prohibit the doctor from being able to have that conversation, forcing our veterans to go outside the system and incur additional costs? I think it is a misguided policy in the extreme. We are in the process now where the majority of Americans think that marijuana should be legalized; and if you ask the question, ``Should we respect the decisions of States?'' that majority gets even bigger. Over 60 percent say the Federal Government ought not to interfere. But here, the Veterans Administration is prohibited from giving candid advice to people in our system, people who could benefit, like the over 1 million legal medical marijuana patients. I think that's inappropriate. I think it's unfortunate. I think we should do everything we can to try and relieve the pain and suffering that our veterans are incurring; and if it means having a conversation with a VA doctor about something perfectly legal in their community, I think that's the least we could do. I commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment forward, and I hope that the day will come when we provide this service to veterans who would like information about it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, May is college decision time for high school seniors across the country. The excitement and joy of this decision is, increasingly, tempered by concerns about just how they are going to pay for this education. The cost of college has gone up 150 percent since 1995. In July, federal subsidized undergraduate student loan rates are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, following the expiration of a one-year extension of lower rates. I support action to create a permanent fix to hold down student loan rates. H.R. 1911 would require that student loan interest rates change year- to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note rate. In effect, over today's rates, H.R. 1911 would increase student loans by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent, depending on the type of loan. Because interest rates on Federal student loans will be reset every year, under the Republican plan, next year's freshmen would face an interest rate on loans taken out freshman year of 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans. Those borrowing the maximum amount would pay approximately $2,000 more in interest payments under this plan during the life of those loans. This is unacceptable in a time of rising tuition costs and growing student debt. Not only does it burden our students and bar some of them from pursuing higher education, it also burdens our economy and limits economic opportunity. Instead, I support H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Relief Act, which extends the current lower rate. I also support H.R. 1979, the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act. This legislation, championed by Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, would allow students to take out federal student loans at the same low interest rate offered to large financial institutions. The low rate enjoyed by big banks, currently about 0.75 percent, would make college more affordable for more students. Interest costs on student loans, however, are only part of the problem. A college education is easily one of the best investments an individual can make and as a nation, educating our young people is the best investment we can make in the future of our economy. Yet, college has become so expensive in the United States that it is far out of reach for too many students and those who do attend often find themselves saddled in a heavy debt load for years to come. We must work to make education more accessible and affordable to all of our nation's students. H.R. 1911 runs counter to this goal and for that reason I do not support it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, recently research has shown that fish populations are not waiting for climate change to make their habitat impossible for them to live. They're moving. That's right: fish all over the globe are migrating to cooler climates. In a process that's been taking place for decades now, fish are sorting themselves out and leaving areas that no longer sustain their quality of life, their ability to reproduce and to thrive. They've steadily been moving to areas where the effects of climate change are not so pronounced. Isn't it interesting that fish, without fancy scientific instrumentation or computer analysis, have reacted to the facts in the sea and moved where they can function, where they can live and where they can, at least for the time being, escape the impacts of climate change? They're also escaping from people who depend on them in their previous habitat to fish, but that's another story on the consequences of climate change and global warming. Isn't it time that the political process starts responding in ways that even fish can? One would hope. But, instead, today on the floor of the House, we're going to return to debate the Keystone pipeline that would carry oil extracted from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. gulf and short circuit Presidential review. Given the potential negative environmental impacts, the repeated efforts by some to rush the environmental and public safety review process, the overwhelming number of comments and concerns received from the public and the recent news about the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have reached 400 parts per million, an amount not seen in at least 3 million years, I'm concerned that this sideshow over the Keystone pipeline will make our climate problem worse, rather than better, and poison the ability to make progress in the future. The simple fact is that this pipeline would facilitate the exploitation of one of the dirtiest sources of energy--tar sands oil-- that poses public, safety, and health risks. In addition to possible worsening of the effects of global climate change, there are serious questions that remain about pipeline safety, spill prevention, and protecting the public from potential health impacts in the wake of the spills that are inevitable. Tar sand developers are amazingly exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund, making American taxpayers liable for the cost of any spills from the Canadian tar sands oil. This places, I think, an unacceptable and unnecessary risk on American taxpayers, one that we can ill afford to assume today. This will be the seventh time that we voted and that I will vote against proposals to streamline the building of the Keystone pipeline as some Members of the House continually and repeatedly attempt to circumvent the legislative process and rush its proposal. The only positive of this project is creating several thousand temporary construction jobs and a few dozen permanent jobs. That's no reason to short circuit the review required by law. The potential environmental harm done by the pipeline--both from the threat of oil spills to the precious aquifer that it will be passing over and because tar sands emit three times more global warming pollution than conventional oil--has led me to the conclusion that I hope President Obama does not approve the pipeline. There are many things we should be doing to rebuild and renew America and create millions of jobs, not a few thousand temporary construction jobs. We ought to be looking at different approaches to revenue and dealing with carbon pollution. For instance, we are discussing a draft that would potentially tax carbon emissions dealing directly with the problem, help provide revenues to lower taxes, pay for what America needs and deal with emerging technologies and level the playing field for technologies of the future. Now, as we watch climate change begin to have serious impacts on our environment, our fish, our wildlife population, and our seasons and the weather, the least we can do is stop actions that may well make climate change worse.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Grant High School Constitution Team from Portland, Oregon, winners of the national ``We the People'' Competition this year. Last month, 1400 students from high schools across 45 states and the District of Columbia came to our nation's capital to be tested on their knowledge of the Constitution, American legal history, and the role of the citizen in participatory government. Since the Constitution's Bicentennial, the ``We the People'' Competition has emphasized the importance of civic education and involvement, and has pushed students to develop a deep knowledge of our government and a passion for our nation's principles. I continue to be greatly impressed by the students with whom I have had the good fortune to meet and watch in competition. They possess a nuanced understanding of the Constitution and a conviction in the strength of our representative government that is rare, even here in Congress. Sadly, Congress has cut all funding for this national program, and continues to greatly underfund public education across the board. As a result of sequestration cuts, Oregon alone will lose $10.2 million in funding for primary and secondary education. The ``We the People'' Competition is exactly the type of program this Congress should be supporting--an investment that educates and grows our next generation of leaders and engaged citizens. I applaud the students from Grant High School, the largest public high school in Portland, who overcame perennial budget cuts and teacher shortages to achieve a remarkable feat in winning this prestigious competition. They should serve as an inspiration to all of us and a reminder of the importance of civic education. This year's winning team, led by teacher David Lickey, was made up of the following students: Leah Alpern, Ella Ben-Zaken, Allen Chan, Annelies Cowan, Jane Crabtree, Claire Eldredge-Burns, Nina Greene, Nate Grein, Morgan Grover, Ada Harris, Madeleine Kaczmarowski, Parkes Kedrick, James Knudsen, Kathleen Kohl, Miriam Kohn, Mac Larsen, Anna Learn, Lauren Meininger, Anayeli Nieves-Alvez, Emily Olsen, Adam Penrose, Ricky Rojas-Echenique, Austin Shaff, Mariah Shriner, Gaelen Snell, Halley Steiner, Jake Stein-Ross, Jacob Sutter, Simon Swifter, Daniel Thatcher, Dylan Tingley, Emily Turner, Grace Williams, and Kendall Wynde. I would also like to recognize We the People Oregon State Coordinators Marilyn Cover and Barbara Rost, who for many years have been responsible for implementing this outstanding academic program through the Classroom Law Project in Portland, Oregon.